Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 1200 • Denver, CO 80203-3460 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
NCLB Reauthorization

To better inform the national debate on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization, ECS collected and synthesized recommendations by national organizations to improve the federal law.

ECS' database is organized around 16 issue areas that captured most recommendations. Some organizations did not offer recommendations for all issues, at least according to our analysis. And several recommendations appear more than once since they applied to multiple issue areas.

The summary and full text of all organizations' original recommendations for  Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) are listed in this report. Please see the main page for additional reports and sources for the database.

Highlights
(See Abbreviation Key at end of table)

Organizations that addressed this issue : 15 of 15
AASA; AFT; BCSA; Comm. NCLB; CCSSO; ECS; Ed Trust; FEA; NAESP; NASBE; NASSP; NCSL; NEA; NGA; and NSBA

Organizations that did not address this issue : None

Comments
Not only did every organization suggest ways to improve adequate yearly progress (AYP), but this NCLB provision received more recommendations than any other issue, according to ECS' analysis.

All organizations proposed the use of "growth models" to calculate AYP, a method which would recognize and reward student and school progress toward meeting annual performance targets. Currently, schools either "hit or miss" AYP targets, and only receive credit for student gains under the somewhat confusing Safe Harbor provision.

Most organizations also called for greater flexibility for students with disabilities and English Language Learners (ELL). The recommendations focused on allowing these students to be counted in their respective subgroups for longer periods of time and tailoring achievement goals based on individual needs.

Lastly, about half the organizations suggested that AYP calculations should factor in "multiple measures"  so as to lessen the emphasis on standardized tests.


Visit ECS' Database on NCLB Reauthorization main page for more information, explanations and access to organizations' original reports. Please note that ECS plans to expand the database as more information becomes available.

Database Last Updated: July 2007

This database was created and compiled by Mary Fulton, ECS policy analyst.
For questions and comments: 303.299.3679 or mfulton@ecs.org

NCLB Reauthorization : American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Establish evaluation scales to measure success/failure toward performance standards.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation

Improve state accountability systems to more accurately evaluate the performance of schools and districts by establishing evaluation scales that identify degrees of success and failure to meet state performance standards.


AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Vertically align state standards and allow use of AYP or benchmarks to measure student progress toward growth expectations that are based on sample of student progress. 
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Improve state accountability systems to more accurately evaluate the performance of schools and districts by establishing vertically aligned state content and performance standards that permit using either adequate yearly progress as a measure of success or benchmarks for student progress that establish annual expectations for growth in achievement, based on progress of a sample of other students across the state.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Judge school/district success based on Title I student achievement.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Judge the success of districts and schools based on the achievement of students served under Title I of ESEA.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Permit use of growth or status models to judge school/district success.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Permit states and districts to use accountability systems based on either growth or status models to judge the success of districts and schools serving Title I students.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Identify struggling schools on continuum of success, target assistance to highest need students and tailor accountability systems to needs of students with disabilities and ELL students.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Improve state accountability systems by making them: (a) more accurate in identifying schools on a continuum of success in raising achievement of Title I students and targeting assistance to schools most in need and (b) fairer to special education and English language learners (ELL) students by tailoring the accountability requirements and assessments to their individual needs.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Permit use of local accountability system if more accurately measures successful instruction.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Permit districts that have the capacity to substitute a local accountability system if the state determines that the local plan more accurately measures the effect of instruction on students and is more useful in planning future instruction.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Give credit for school progress and/or proficiency under AYP.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Implement an accountability system that gives credit for progress and/or proficiency.

Rationale
: A system that gives credit for progress, in addition to proficiency, acknowledges the effectiveness of schools that improve even if they fall short of arbitrary proficiency benchmarks. Progress goals should be set at ambitious but attainable levels.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Distinguish truly struggling schools from those that need limited assistance under AYP.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Create levels for making AYP that distinguish truly struggling schools from those that need limited assistance.

Rationale
: A system that distinguishes schools that need a lot of assistance from those that need limited assistance will allow supports and financial resources to be appropriately targeted.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to develop “learning environment index” for schools and mandate states and districts to address problem areas.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Require states to develop a “learning environment index” for all schools and mandate that districts and states address the problem areas identified by the index for schools not making AYP.

Rationale
: Many of the schools not “making AYP” do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, teacher retention policies, and the financial and professional supports necessary to succeed. The learning environment index should identify and measure teaching and learning conditions in each school that are known to contribute to increased student achievement. Schools that fail to make AYP would be required to show improvement on their learning environment index, and states and districts would be required to provide the resources to ensure that schools address the teaching and learning conditions identified for improvement.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Offer grants for states to develop common standards, curriculum and assessments for more consistency in proficiency and growth definitions.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation

Offer grants for voluntary consortia of states to develop common academic standards, curriculum and assessments to provide more consistency in the definition of proficiency and growth across participating states.

Rationale: This initiative would allow states in the consortium to pool their resources and develop appropriate assessments that align with the regular state assessments for English language learners and students with disabilities, as is currently allowed but rarely done due to limited state resources.

AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure state accountability systems fairly and accurately measure student progress and achievement.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation

Ensure that state accountability systems are fair and accurate measures of student progress and achievement.

Rationale: Currently, states submit accountability plans and assert that the state standards are rigorous and the tests are valid, reliable, and aligned to the standards and curriculum. They use various methods and statistical procedures to set cut scores and to determine if schools and districts have made AYP. This process lacks transparency, and, as some states are granted waivers or other allowances while others are not, it also lacks credibility. A study of state accountability system, including standards, curriculum, and assessments, by a group such as the National Academy of Science, would strengthen the enterprise and provide credibility to the system.

AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Maintain disaggregated student achievement reports, but change numerous ways to fail and only one way to “make” AYP.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Maintain reporting on student achievement by subgroup without giving schools numerous ways to fail and only one way to “make” AYP.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation

Hold high schools accountable for increasing the graduation rate, using a common definition, and graduating students ready for college and work.

AYP 1 - Full Recommendation

Provide incentives for states to raise academic standards and improve assessments to align them with college and workplace expectations.

These incentives should enable states to r
eform secondary schools and hold them accountable for increasing the graduation rate, using the common definition adopted by the nation’s governors, and graduating students who are ready for college and work.

 

AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation

Add science to AYP and support state participation in NAEP science assessments.

AYP 2 - Full Recommendation

Add science to the adequate yearly progress (AYP) accountability system and support state participation in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessments.

AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide guidance on differentiating degree to which and reasons schools/districts miss AYP and focus resources on those with highest need.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Provide guidance on ways that states can differentiate among districts and schools that are close to or far from making adequate yearly progress, and ensure that resources for improvement focus on those with the highest concentrations of underperforming students.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Allow year-to-year growth and other methods for measuring student achievement toward proficiency.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Permit states to use rigorous measures of year-to-year growth in student academic achievement and other methods verified by the Secretary that are consistent with the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading, math and science.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Close loopholes allowing states to “game” NCLB accountability and undermine school restructuring.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Close loopholes that allow states to use statistical means to “game” the accountability system and undermine the intent of school restructuring.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Commission on No Child Left Behind (Comm. NCLB)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to include achievement growth in AYP calculations.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Improve the accuracy and fairness of adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations by allowing states to include achievement growth in AYP calculations. These calculations would enable schools to receive credit for students who are on track to becoming proficient within three years, based on the growth trajectory of their assessment scores.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to include science assessment results in AYP calculations and set annual science performance objectives.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Hold schools accountable for student achievement in science by requiring states to include the results of the science assessments required under NCLB in the AYP calculations of schools and districts. To ensure the gap in science achievement is closed, states would set annual measurable objectives for science that mirror the timeline presently in place for mathematics and reading.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require schools to be identified for improvement if miss AYP for same subgroup in same subject for two consecutive years.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Require schools to be identified for improvement if they do not make AYP for the same subgroup in the same subject for two consecutive years. This approach would more accurately identify struggling schools.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Restrict minimum subgroup size to 20 or lower and confidence intervals to 95% or lower, but give education secretary waiver authority.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Hold schools accountable for the achievement of all students by restricting the minimum subgroup size to no more than 20 and confidence intervals to no more than 95%. The U.S. Secretary of Education should be given waiver authority to increase the maximum subgroup size to 30 in cases where states can justify such a number.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Maintain Education Department’s 1% policy on alternative standards and assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities and reduce cap to 1% of students assessed against modified standards.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Improve the rules for including students with disabilities in AYP calculations. Specifically, maintain the U.S. Department of Education’s 1% policy (allowing children with severe cognitive disabilities to be assessed against alternate achievement standards using alternate assessments) and amend the proposed 2% policy (allowing students with disabilities to be assessed against “modified achievement standards”) by reducing the cap to 1%.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Strengthen procedures for determining which students with disabilities should use alternative assessments and standards or be assessed against modified standards for AYP purposes.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Ensure that decisions are made properly and students with disabilities are assessed in the most appropriate manner. These goals should be accomplished by strengthening the procedures for determining which students use alternative assessments and standards or are assessed against modified standards and improving the tools and training available for Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to make those decisions.
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Extend time period, from two years to three years, that ELL students who have attained English proficiency can remain in ELL subgroup for AYP.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Allow schools to more accurately measure the achievement of English language learner (ELL) students by extending the time period, from two years to three years, that ELL students who have attained proficiency in English can remain in the ELL subgroup for AYP purposes.
AYP 8 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to conform to NGA graduation rate compact, hold schools accountable for closing graduation gap, and require schools to disaggregate graduation rate data and "other" AYP indicator.
AYP 8 - Full Recommendation Hold schools accountable for improving the graduation rates of all students by closing the graduation-rate gap by 2014 and requiring states to conform to the National Governors Association compact on graduation rates. Schools should be required to disaggregate graduation-rate data, as well as the elementary school indicator used for AYP purposes (often school attendance), and use this disaggregated data and indicator in AYP calculations.
AYP 9 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to align grade-level tests to track annual student progress.
AYP 9 - Full Recommendation Require states to align grade-level tests to enable the tracking of student progress from year to year.
AYP 10 - Summary of Recommendation Develop national model for standards and tests based on NAEP and give states three participation options for AYP purposes.
AYP 10 - Full Recommendation Raise the bar of expectations for all American children through the development of national model content and performance standards and tests in reading or language arts, mathematics and science based on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) frameworks. For NCLB accountability purposes, states could adopt the resulting national model standards and tests as their own; build their own assessment instruments based on the national model standards; or keep their existing (or revamped) standards and tests. States choosing the second or third option would have their standards and tests analyzed and compared to the national model.
AYP 11 - Summary of Recommendation Require Secretary of Education to issue reports comparing rigor of state standards to a national model using common metric.
AYP 11 - Full Recommendation Keep the public informed about states’ expectations by requiring the U.S. Secretary of Education to periodically issue reports comparing the rigor of all state standards to the national model using a common metric.
AYP 12 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts with low performing high schools to develop and implement comprehensive improvement plans.
AYP 12 - Full Recommendation Support struggling high schools by requiring districts in which more than half of the high schools did not make AYP—or in which half the students attend high schools that did not make AYP—to develop and implement comprehensive, districtwide high school improvement plans.
AYP 13 - Summary of Recommendation Require a 12th-grade state assessment to determine performance gains, teacher and principal effectiveness and preparation for college and work.
AYP 13 - Full Recommendation Ensure the continuous achievement of high school students by requiring states to administer an additional assessment in grade 12.

This 12th grade assessment will create a useful measure of a high school’s effectiveness in preparing students for life after high school and make possible the inclusion of growth calculations in AYP for high schools and highly qualified and effective teacher (HQET) and highly effective principal (HEP) measurements. This assessment would not be the sole determinant of whether a student graduates and receives a diploma. States can consider awarding college credit in state-supported colleges and universities for students who show mastery of college-level material on this assessment.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Encourage use of various accountability models focused on individual student achievement to promote more valid and meaningful determinations.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Encourage use of a variety of accountability models focused on individual student achievement that build on adequate yearly progress (AYP) to promote more valid, reliable, educationally meaningful accountability determinations.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use growth models to complement status measures for AYP.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Ensure states’ right to use true growth models to complement status measures for accountability purposes.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use additional school performance data to differentiate AYP determinations and consequences.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Ensure states’ right to use relevant confirmatory/compensatory data regarding school performance as part of a process for accountability determinations based on multiple measures and sound judgment (to differentiate accountability determinations and consequences).
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Include students with disabilities in state assessment and accountability systems based on ambitious but educationally sound goals and measures.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Encourage inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessment and accountability systems in a manner that is most meaningful for the full range of students with disabilities, based on ambitious but educationally sound performance goals and measures.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Continue to count students with disabilities' performance in that AYP subgroup for appropriate period once they transfer out.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Count the performance of students with disabilities who recently transitioned out of that subgroup in subgroup accountability determinations for an appropriate period.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Include ELL students in state assessment and accountability systems based on ambitious but educationally sound measures and goals.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Encourage inclusion of English language learner (ELL) students in state assessment and accountability systems in a manner that is most meaningful for the full range of ELL students, based on ambitious but educationally sound performance measures and goals.
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to include new immigrant ELL students in school accountability based on multiple measures for at least 3 years.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Permit states to properly include new immigrant ELL students in school accountability based on multiple measures for several years (no fewer than 3 years) where educationally appropriate.
AYP 8 - Summary of Recommendation Allow full range of alternate assessments and value individualized growth of ELL students.
AYP 8 - Full Recommendation Allow the use of a full range of alternate assessments and to value individualized growth for English Language Learner (ELL) students.
AYP 9 - Summary of Recommendation Continue to count ELL student performance in this AYP subgroup for appropriate period once they transfer out.
AYP 9 - Full Recommendation Count the performance of students who recently transitioned out of the English Language Learner (ELL) student subgroup in subgroup accountability determinations for an appropriate period.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Education Commission of the States (ECS)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure NCLB focuses on the performance growth of all -- not just low-performing -- students.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Ensure performance growth of all students, not just low-performing students. The promise of NCLB to raise the achievement of students who have been struggling should not obscure the need to raise the achievement of all students, regardless of current academic standing. NCLB provides a unique opportunity to ensure improvement for all students.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Reassess AYP to ensure it measures school and district effects on student progress over time.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Reassess adequate yearly progress. AYP must be thoroughly analyzed to ensure it measures school and district effects on student progress. The reassessment should take into consideration that AYP currently does not follow the progress of cohorts of students over time – an approach that provides a more accurate picture of student performance and how schools and teachers are contributing to the gains.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Maintain goal of 100% proficiency by 2013-14 and ensure states support this objective, despite number of schools in improvement.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Maintain commitment to the goal of 100% proficiency by 2013-14. Ensure state NCLB plans continue to support this goal, even if an increasing number of schools are identified as in need of improvement.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Initiate independent AYP assessment to determine meaningful definition and measurement of student growth.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Initiate an independent reassessment of AYP to determine what constitutes meaningful growth, and to ensure the current formula is a statistically viable means of determining adequate yearly progress.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Expand AYP exemptions in rural states regarding alternative assessments for students with disabilities.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Allow exceptions for states with large rural areas, where district populations do not exceed 100 students, to reconfigure the 1% rule under AYP so at least two students doing well on an alternative assessment could be counted as proficient. Otherwise, districts with only one or no student classified as proficient would not qualify for the flexibility in NCLB.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Education Trust (Ed Trust)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Consider disaggregated high school graduation rates as AYP indicator equal with achievement indicators.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Consider disaggregated high school graduation rates as an adequate yearly progress (AYP) indicator co-equal with achievement indicators for high schools.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require high schools/districts with graduation rates of less than 90% to increase overall rates and reduce gaps between groups.  
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Require high schools and districts with group graduation rates of less than 90% to increase four-year overall graduation rates by not less than 5 percentage points over two years, or to increase the five-year rate by not less than 8 percentage points over two years. The graduation growth targets must both raise overall graduation rates and reduce graduation rate gaps between groups.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide options to measure AYP, including growth models and college- and career-ready level standards. Require states to adopt subgroup “n” size no greater than 30 and confidence intervals no greater than 95%.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation

Reform AYP to give states more choices and schools credit for student learning growth and to promote college-and career-ready standards. Provide states with three AYP Choices, but require all states to adopt a student subgroup “n” size no greater than 30 and confidence intervals no greater than 95%.

A) States could choose to retain the “status model” and the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014; or

B) States could move to a “growth model” and retain the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014; or

C) States could agree to boost their standards to “college- and career-ready levels” and agree to get not less than 95% of all students and students in each group to the “new basic” level within 12 years of enactment and 80% of all students and students in each group to the “new proficient” within 12 years of enactment.

AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Require states with high discrepancies of students scoring proficient on statewide tests vs. NAEP to increase by 50% the percentage of students reaching “advanced/exceeds proficient” level on state assessments by 2014.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Require states that have unusually low definitions of proficiency, as revealed by a discrepancy of 3:1 or more between the percentage of students at the proficient level on their own assessments and those at the proficient level on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams to increase by 50% the percentage of students reaching the “advanced/exceeds proficient” level on their state assessment by 2014.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use growth models for AYP, but require states to have sophisticated data systems, stable assessment systems, student progress targets and comprehensive high school assessments. 
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to use a growth model to track student progress and calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP), but also require the following: 

  • A statewide education data system that tracks individual students from year to year and can match student records to teacher records over time and produce all required reports on teacher effectiveness
  • Stable assessment systems or the demonstrated ability to equate scores from year to year
  • Growth targets for all students—including those at or above the proficient level on state standards
  • Assessments in multiple high school grades in mathematics and Reading/Language Arts in order to use growth calculations for high school AYP determinations.

Under the recommended growth model students would be counted as proficient for AYP if they are on a three-year trajectory toward proficiency by a certain date, or by the last assessment, whichever comes first. Accountability determinations would continue to be based on both overall and disaggregated data.

AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use achievement of college- and career-ready standards as alternative measure for AYP as long as states meet several specified requirements. States that raise these standards would be allowed to adjust AYP timelines and targets.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to use college- and career-ready standards for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP), but require a task force of K-12, higher education and business leaders. This approach would qualify as an alternative measure for AYP only if:

  • The state has an 11th grade assessment and performance standards that are aligned with the college- and career-ready standards, and has aligned its assessments and performance standards for elementary and middle grades to the 11th-grade, college-ready assessment
  • The state’s higher education system or SHEEO certifies that students meeting the proficient level on assessments aligned to the standards and administered at the 11th grade level would be, upon admission to any state college or university, placed into credit-bearing courses
  • Achievement of the “new basic” level would indicate preparation adequate for active citizenship and service in the military, entry into postsecondary education, and access to formal, employment-related training/education opportunities
  • States provide attestation from representatives of industry that the standards reflect the skills and knowledge necessary for meeting workplace demands
  • Evidence of appropriate rigor from third through at least 11th grade is accepted by a peer review panel appointed by the Secretary of Education.

States that raise their standards to college- and career-ready level would be allowed to set a new 12-year AYP timeline and adjust their targets such that:

  • States can set goals for 80% of students to demonstrate proficiency against college and career-ready standards. States also must set goals for 95% of students demonstrating basic achievement.
  • Both goals must be applied separately to each student group at the school, district and state level for AYP purposes.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Replace NCLB proficiency targets with ones based on success of effective public schools.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Replace NCLB's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Allow growth measures and pre-determined proficiency levels for AYP calculations.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Use multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to standardized tests.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Fund R&D for more effective accountability systems that improve student achievement.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Require state assessments to use growth model to show student and subgroup progress.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Require state assessment systems to employ a growth model, demonstrating the progress of individual students and student subgroups over time.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require assessments to use multiple measures of student progress and achievement.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Require state assessment systems to incorporate multiple methods of gauging student progress and achievement.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require accountability systems to measure school success and inform changes to increase student achievement.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Require states to create a school accountability system to guide schools and to measure their success in making needed changes to increase student achievement.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Factor scores of students belonging to multiple subgroups into only one subgroup for AYP.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Require the scores of a student who is a member of multiple subgroups to be factored in as part of only one subgroup. This provision should apply when student subgroup test scores are used as part of the system for measuring progress in school improvement.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Include students with disabilities' IEP achievement goals in student/school success determinations for AYP.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Include progress toward the achievement of goals specified in students with disabilities' Individual Education Plans (IEP) among the factors used to determine student and school success.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Use growth models to assess student with disabilities' achievement for AYP.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Base assessment of the achievement of students with disabilities on a growth model that measures their progress from year to year.
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Use growth model to assess ELL student achievement for AYP.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Base assessment of the achievement of English language learners (ELL) on a growth model that measures their progress from year to year.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use multiple indicators to evaluate student, school and system performance.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Require federal state assessment requirements to use multiple indicators of student achievement and school performance to evaluate the performance of all elements of the education system and stimulate the system’s continuous improvement.

 

AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Defer to state assessment and accountability systems, unless federal officials have good cause to do otherwise.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Defer to the thoughtfully and deliberately crafted assessment systems and accompanying accountability measures states have crafted to meet their individual needs and circumstances, unless federal officials can show good cause otherwise.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Hold schools accountable for the performance of all students.  
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Hold schools schools accountable for the performance of all students under federal accountability requirements.

 

AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Base accountability requirements on multiple measures to produce meaningful, valid results.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Base federal accountability requirements on multiple measures producing accurate, meaningful and valid results.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Allow all states to use growth models for AYP. 
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use student growth rates as the basis for meeting any federal accountability requirements, also known as “adequate yearly progress” (AYP).  
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use English proficiency attainment to hold schools/districts accountable for ELL students.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use English proficiency attainment to hold schools and districts accountable for English language learner (ELL) students, in cases where it would be valid, reliable, and consistent with the student’s educational program.  
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to count students with disabilities in AYP who successfully complete their IEPs.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Allow states to count students with a disability who successfully complete their Individual Education Plan (IEP) -- but do not earn a diploma based on state academic standards -- in AYP calculations.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Require Education Department to review state accountability plans to improve AYP data consistency through confidence intervals, subgroup size and full academic year considerations.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Require U.S. Department of Education to review and evaluation all state NCLB accountability plans to improve reliability and validity of adequate yearly progress (AYP) data by incorporating confidence intervals, subgroup size and full academic year consideration in AYP formula calculations. The department also should provide education and assistance to states where gaps and disparity exist. 
  • Much like the confidence intervals applied in standardized assessments, confidence intervals applied to AYP at the school level will provide a more accurate measure of a school’s performance. 
  • Currently, some states benefit from the use of confidence intervals applied to AYP; however, some individual schools are, in effect, being penalized because confidence intervals are not applied at the school level.
  • Differing AYP systems in each state require that each state, rather than the federal government, develop a confidence interval system that works for its local schools. 
  • The great disparity in the definition of subgroup size benefits some schools and penalizes others. 
  • The great disparity in the definition of full academic year benefits some schools in some states and penalizes others.  
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require all public schools, charter schools and nonpublic schools receiving federal funds to use state assessments and AYP criteria.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Require all public schools, charter schools and nonpublic schools receiving federal funds to use the same state assessment and meet the same state criteria for determining AYP. Schools identified as “receiving schools” must meet AYP criteria and/or Safe Harbor provision to gain authorization to receive federally funded transfer students.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Extend graduation rate to within five years of entering high school.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Extend the graduation rate to within at least five years of entering high school. 
  • The requirement to report graduation within four years does not take into account each student’s individual learning needs. 
  • High school graduation should be based on mastery of subjects, not on completion of seat time.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Incorporate ELL student scores in AYP determination after they develop English language proficiency.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation

Incorporate the scores of English language learners (ELL) in AYP determination after these students have developed language proficiency, as evidenced by a research-based and state-approved assessment.

  • Research suggests that 7–10 years is required for individuals to become cognitive academic language proficient— the level of language proficiency required to demonstrate academic proficiency on assessment. NCLB requires reporting scores of new ELL students in three years, a period of time often insufficient for the development of language functionality. 
  • The practice of testing students in the English language on academic assessments is confusing, inappropriate, and of little value for ELL students who have not yet mastered the language.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Base AYP on multiple assessment results and multiple opportunities to retake state tests.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Base AYP on the results of multiple assessments and multiple opportunities to retake state tests. Multiple assessments provide greater reliability in determining individual student progress toward meeting graduation requirements.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Expand Safe Harbor definition to include demonstrated improvement, applied to all required reporting areas.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation

Expand definition of Safe Harbor to include demonstrated improvement and apply to all required reporting areas.

  • When a district or school can demonstrate overall subgroup growth on the state assessment and on all “other academic indicators,” it should not be labeled as “in need of improvement.” 
  • Schools or districts that do not meet AYP or do not show improvement in all “other academic indicators” shall be designated as “in need of improvement.”
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use growth formulas to calculate AYP.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to calculate AYP for each student subgroup on the basis of state-developed growth formulas that calculate growth in individual student achievement from year to year. 

  • Individual student growth is the most important indicator of student success.
  • The most accurate measures of student and school performance analyze individual student growth from year to year. 
  • In implementing an individual growth model to measure annual student achievement, assessments used to determine AYP must be aligned to provide consistent, individual student longitudinal performance information. 
  • Current NCLB AYP determination only measures student performance by comparing different sets of students at the same grade level. 
  • The current AYP calculation has many schools and districts focusing on students closest to the cut scores rather than those with the greatest need.
AYP 8 - Summary of Recommendation Expand alternative assessments for students with disabilities that are counted for AYP.
AYP 8 - Full Recommendation

Expand the number of alternative assessments that are counted toward making AYP to accommodate schools that have high populations of students with cognitive disabilities and more accurately reflect the true school population of students with cognitive disabilities.

  • Expanding the percentage of students who may count toward the number of alternative assessments helps to accommodate schools and districts that have high populations of students with cognitive disabilities and more accurately reflect the true population of students with cognitive disabilities.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure federal programs emphasize narrowing achievement gaps and achieving proficiency, and not intrude on state processes. Acknowledge and reward state accountability plans that meet NCLB spirit and goals.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Ensure federal programs emphasize results in narrowing the achievement gap and achieving proficiency, and not intrude on state processes. The U.S. Department of Education should fully utilize the waiver authority granted in NCLB to acknowledge and reward accountability plans that meet the spirit and broad goals of the law.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure state accountability plan approvals, amendments and waivers are uniform, transparent, deliberate, prompt and made public.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Ensure the U.S. Department of Education process for state accountability plan approval and amendment is uniform, transparent, deliberate and prompt, with requests for exceptions and waivers, both those approved and denied, promptly made public, published and explained in writing. Options granted to any state should be published as notice to and guidance for the benefit of all states.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use student growth approach to calculate AYP.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use a value-added, or student-growth, approach in their accountability plans.

A state plan would meet the requirements of NCLB provided it includes benchmarks to measure increased achievement and disaggregates by subgroups. Not only would this be a more accurate measure of school and student performance, but it would allow states to focus limited resources on the students and schools most in need. (NCLB has a mechanism for recognizing significant growth within a subgroup that falls short of proficiency; however, this mechanism is limited in its application.)
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Allow use of multiple measures to evaluate performance for AYP. 
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use multiple measures in addition to standardized tests to evaluate school and student performance to determine AYP. States should have the option to determine the measures used and the weight of each measure.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Publicize states' option to average two or three years of data to calculate percentage of students scoring proficient and identify schools in need of improvement.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Require U.S. Department of Education to publicize to all states the option of averaging two or three years of data when calculating the percentage of students scoring proficient for purposes of identifying schools for improvement.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use their accountability system to comply with spirit of NCLB. Base systems on realistic, not aspirational proficiency goals.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use their accountability system to comply with the spirit of NCLB. These systems should be based on realistic academic goals and not on the broad aspirational proficiency goals of NCLB.
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to identify schools for improvement only after AYP targets in same subjects and subgroup are missed for two consecutive years. Require Education Department to clarify option to identify schools only after miss AYP targets in same subject in two consecutive years.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Allow states to identify schools for improvement only after the AYP targets in the same subjects and subgroup are missed for two consecutive years. The Education Department should clarify that all states have the option to identify schools only after they miss the AYP targets in the same subject in two consecutive years. Some states have taken advantage of this, while other states are unaware of this option. The department also should analyze and report on the effects of this option on the ability of schools, districts and states to comply with AYP.
AYP 8 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure states know option of identifying districts as “in need of improvement” only when they miss AYP in same subject across multiple grade spans for two consecutive years.

AYP 8 - Full Recommendation Ensure the U.S. Department of Education authorizes all states to identify districts as being “in need of improvement” only when they do not make AYP in the same subject across multiple grade spans for two consecutive years.

AYP 9 - Summary of Recommendation Include students in multiple subgroups for reporting diagnostic data, but in smallest subgroup they belong for AYP purposes.

AYP 9 - Full Recommendation Ensure that schools, districts and states include multiple subgroup identification when reporting student data for diagnostics. When calculating AYP, however, the scores of students with multiple subgroup identifications should be included in the smallest subgroup of which they are a part.
AYP 10 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to develop basis for determining school/district assessment participation rates for AYP purposes. For example, based on average daily attendance.

AYP 10 - Full Recommendation Provide states with flexibility in their accountability plan to establish a formula for the participation rate of schools and districts. This formula could use the average daily membership (ADM) and/or the average daily attendance (ADA) as the basis for an appropriate participation rate for testing purposes. Any formula included in a plan should hold schools accountable to an accurate representation of student attendance and recognize the differing definition of an academic year.
AYP 11 - Summary of Recommendation Afford states flexibility with AYP graduation rate for students pursuing alternative paths to diploma and for including students with disabilities.
AYP 11 - Full Recommendation Afford states the flexibility to include students in their AYP graduation rate who are successfully pursuing alternative paths that are similar in rigor to a high school diploma and provide more flexibility in how students with disabilities are included in graduation rates.
AYP 12 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to set separate starting points and AYP projection paths for students with disabilities.
AYP 12 - Full Recommendation Allow states to set separate starting points and AYP projection paths for students with disabilities. This will acknowledge that “gap” kids do not meet the definition of students with severe disabilities, nor are they appropriate candidates for regular assessments and standards.
AYP 13 - Summary of Recommendation Publicize states' option of setting different “n” sizes for student subgroups, such as students with disabilities, for AYP and reporting purposes.
AYP 13 - Full Recommendation Ensure Education Department publicizes to states the option of setting a different “n” size — the minimum number of students needed to establish a subgroup in a school for reporting purposes. Some state plans have acknowledged the difficulty disabled students will have in meeting AYP and have increased their “n” size so fewer schools are required to meet the AYP proficiency standards for this subgroup. This will reduce the number of schools that miss AYP due solely to this subgroup.
AYP 14 - Summary of Recommendation

Give states flexibility to determine when to hold schools accountable for including ELL students in AYP.

AYP 14 - Full Recommendation

Provide states with the flexibility to determine when to hold schools accountable for including English language learner (ELL) students in AYP calculations.

AYP 15 - Summary of Recommendation Publicize states' option of setting different “n” sizes for ELL student subgroups for AYP purposes.
AYP 15 - Full Recommendation Ensure Education Department publicizes the option for states to set a different “n” size — the minimum number of students needed to establish a subgroup in a school for reporting purposes — for English language learner (ELL) students. This option has been made available to some states with respect to students with disabilities and also should be available to the states for students of limited English proficiency.
AYP 16 - Summary of Recommendation Reevaluate 100% proficiency expectation for all students under AYP. This goal is not achievable and places states at risk of litigation.
AYP 16 - Full Recommendation Reevaluate the expectations placed on states to reach 100% proficiency as measured by adequate yearly progress (AYP). Although this is a laudable goal, under the current structure of AYP, it is not achievable and will put states at constant risk of litigation for not providing adequate resources to meet the NCLB proficiency goals.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Education Association (NEA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Base AYP on multiple measures of student learning and school success.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Base accountability upon multiple measures of student learning and school success.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Give states flexibility with accountability systems and which grades to test.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Give states the flexibility to design accountability systems that produce results, including deciding in which grades to administer annual statewide tests.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow use of growth models to measure progress, but not to penalize schools.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Give states flexibility to utilize growth models and other measures of progress that assess student achievement over time, and recognize improvement on all points of the achievement scale. Growth models should not be used to penalize schools or teachers, but to inform instruction and interventions.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure assessment and accountability systems align with standards and curricula, improve student learning and do not narrow curricula.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Ensure assessment and accountability systems are closely aligned with high standards and classroom curricula, provide timely data to help improve student learning, and are comprehensive and flexible so that they do not result in narrowing of the curricula.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Apply accountability systems to high schools without increasing dropout rates.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Require that comprehensive accountability systems appropriately apply to high schools without increasing dropout rates.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Governors Association (NGA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Determine accountability measures at the state level, not the federal level.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Determine accountability measures at the state level, not the federal level.

Maximum flexibility in designing state accountability systems, including testing, is critical to preserve the amalgamation of federal funding, local control of education and state responsibility for system-wide reform.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Use voluntary value-added or growth models to determine AYP.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Use voluntary value-added or growth models to determine AYP.

Congress should work closely with governors in the development of legislation dealing with value-added or growth models to ensure maximum state flexibility and utility, while preserving the tenets of NCLB to raise student achievement. All states should be eligible to utilize value-added or growth models.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide flexibility in AYP to give ELL students time to overcome language barriers and make academic gains. Ensure ELL gains are reflected in school data.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Encourage Congress and the Administration to work with governors to provide flexibility within AYP to ensure that English language learner (ELL) students are given adequate time to overcome language barriers and make academic gains, and that ELL student gains are accurately reflected within school data.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Refine AYP to reflect the academic progress of students with disabilities.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Refine AYP to reflect the academic progress of students with disabilities.

Governors believe that flexibility on alternate and modified assessments for students with disabilities should be addressed in the law. Additionally, Congress should continue to work with governors to ensure accountability for the education of students with disabilities while also providing flexibility for and recognition of schools and states making progress.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Prevent use of NAEP as state proficiency measurement, substitute for state assessment or for rewards/sanctions; consult with governors before mandating 12th grade NAEP assessment; and ensure NAEP expenses are reimbursed.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Limit uses of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), consult with governors before mandating a 12th grade NAEP assessment and ensure all state and local NAEP expenses are fully reimbursed.

State NAEP results are not comparable with state assessment results, since NAEP is not based on or aligned with individual state academic standards. NAEP should not be used as the primary measure of state proficiency or as a substitute for state assessments. Rewards or sanctions should not be levied on a state based on its NAEP results, but should rely on the state's own accountability system. In addition, governors believe it is important to recognize that NAEP is designed as a representative sample and should not be required of every student; however, NAEP should provide appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities. Given the variety and breadth of high school assessments, Congress and the administration should closely consult with governors before mandating a twelfth grade NAEP. The federal government must continue to ensure that all related state and local NAEP assessment expenses are fully reimbursed.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National School Boards Association (NSBA)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow larger student subgroup “n” sizes for districts than schools and a group's “n” size to increase to reflect school’s total enrollment.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Allow a state's “n” size for student subgroups to be larger for school districts than for schools. In addition, the “n” size for a group within a school may be increased to a number or percentage of that school’s total school enrollment to better align with schools with large enrollments.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Reduce “safe harbor ” requirement from 10% to 5% to provide more flexibility in meeting AYP.
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Reduce the “safe harbor ” requirement from 10% to 5%, thus permitting fewer students to demonstrate progress within the group in order to meet this alternative AYP requirement.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow students identified in more than one AYP subgroup to be represented as equal fraction totaling one student.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation Allow students identified in more than one group for AYP to be represented in the count for each group as an equal fraction totaling one student. This change creates a fairer approach in determining AYP for schools with students belonging to more than one group than over-representing their count.
AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Allow AYP goals to increase in unequal increments and different increase rates for subgroups to reach 100% proficiency.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Allow intermediate AYP goals to increase in unequal increments, and allow student subgroups to have different rates of increase to ultimately reach 100% proficient.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Allow AYP measures to include gain score approaches and partial credit for meeting targets.
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation Expand basic AYP measurement system to include: gain score approaches (like value added), and partial credit for meeting basic proficient targets.
AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Allow alternate AYP measurement methods, while still using intermediate goals and reaching 100% proficiency by 2013-14.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation Allow alternate methods of measuring AYP, provided the system is based on attaining proficiency in the 2013-14 school year and using intermediate goals, thereby providing states with greater flexibility to design their accountability systems without lowering the ultimate goals of NCLB.
AYP 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow student test participation rate for AYP to range from 90% to 95%.
AYP 7 - Full Recommendation Adjust the specific requirement for 95% test participation to a range of 90% to 95% (based on criteria established in the state plan).
AYP 8 - Summary of Recommendation Allow students to be exempted from test participation rate requirements on case-by-case basis for designated reasons. 
AYP 8 - Full Recommendation Allow students to be exempted from state test participation rate requirements on a case-by-case basis due to medical conditions, current state laws that grant parents final decisions regarding participation on standardized assessments, and uncontrollable circumstances (e.g. natural disaster).
AYP 9 - Summary of Recommendation Allow students with “unusual patterns of attendance” to be exempt from test participation rate calculation. For example, chronic truants or those with difficult life circumstances.
AYP 9 - Full Recommendation Allow students determined to have “unusual patterns of attendance ” as defined by the state education agency to be exempt from the calculation to determine participation rate and referenced in the local school district accountability plan. (This category of students may include chronic truants as well as students who fail to attend school on a regular basis because of life circumstances but continue to maintain their official enrollment status.)
AYP 10 - Summary of Recommendation Assign "below basic" score to students not participating in assessments, but ineligible for exemptions.
 
AYP 10 - Full Recommendation Allow students not participating in assessments and determined not to be eligible for exemptions to be assigned a “below basic ” score by the school. In such cases, the school may not be identified as failing to meet the participation rate for AYP on the basis that those same students did not take the assessment.
AYP 11 - Summary of Recommendation Offer alternative assessments, based on IEP, to students with disabilities for AYP purposes.
AYP 11 - Full Recommendation Offer students with disabilities an alternate assessment for the purpose of determining AYP, provided that any such assessment is reflected by the student’s Individual Education Plan and is based on the IEP team’s evaluation and the services to be provided for that student – and meets parent consent requirements for IEP’s.
AYP 12 - Summary of Recommendation Limit percentage of students with disabilities whose alternative assessment score are counted as meeting AYP to 3% of total students assessed.
AYP 12 - Full Recommendation Limit the percentage of students statewide who may have their score counted under alternative assessments as meeting AYP to 3% of the total number of students assessed.
AYP 13 - Summary of Recommendation

Allow students with disabilities' alternate assessments to include out of grade-level tests and base AYP on gain/growth or adjusted scores.

AYP 13 - Full Recommendation Allow alternate assessments for students with disabilities to include out of level assessments consistent with Individual Education Plans (IEP). Likewise, a student’s test results for the purpose of determining AYP may be based on gain scores toward meeting the state standard for proficient or on an adjusted “cut ” score for determining proficient.
AYP 14 - Summary of Recommendation Allow ELL students to be counted in this subgroup for AYP up to three years after tranferring from the group.
AYP 14 - Full Recommendation Allow English language learner (ELL) students to be counted in this subgroup for AYP purposes for an additional three years after tranferring from this group. The current regulation is codified relating to 1) first year students in the United States, and 2) counting students as ELL for determining AYP once they leave the group.
AYP 15 - Summary of Recommendation Use higher score of students assessed more than once prior to beginning of next school year for determining AYP.
AYP 15 - Full Recommendation Use the higher score achieved by a student who is assessed more than once prior to the beginning of the next school year as the sole score for that student for the purposes of determining AYP.
AYP 16 - Summary of Recommendation Include assessment scores for AYP purposes of students who take exams prior to year normally offered and score proficient or above.

AYP 16 - Full Recommendation Allow a student's score to be counted for the purpose of determining AYP if the student scores proficient or above on an assessment taken prior to the academic year in which that assessment is normally offered. However, if that student fails to score at the proficient level, that student’s score will not be counted for determining AYP.
AYP 17 - Summary of Recommendation Allow state NCLB plans to alter federal accountability framework to align with their own systems.
AYP 17 - Full Recommendation Require Secretary of Education, when approving NCLB accountability plans, to grant states flexibility to alter the federal framework to align with the state's own accountability system.
AYP 18 - Summary of Recommendation Require nonpublic school students receiving Title I benefits to take same assessments as public schools, with accountability and test reporting requirements.
AYP 18 - Full Recommendation Require students receiving Title I benefits in nonpublic schools to be given the same assessments, as public school students, with appropriate accountability and test reporting requirements to parents and school districts that are required by NCLB to provide consultative services to those non public schools.
AYP 19 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to place hold on nonpublic school Title I support if students do not make AYP and perform lower than area public schools.
AYP 19 - Full Recommendation Allow states to authorize a cessation of Title I support to a nonpublic school whose Title I students as a whole do not make AYP and perform at lower levels than the area public school(s) for three years or more.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)


Abbreviation Key for Organizations
AASA = American Association of School Administrators
AFT = American Federation of Teachers
BCSA = Business Coalition for Student Achievement
Comm. NCLB = Commission on No Child Left Behind
CCSSO = Council of Chief State School Officers
ECS = Education Commission of the States
Ed Trust = Education Trust
FEA = Forum on Educational Accountability
NAESP = National Association of Elementary School Principals
NASBE = National Association of State Boards of Education
NASSP = National Association of Secondary School Principals
NCSL = National Conference of State Legislatures
NEA = National Education Association
NGA = National Governors Association
NSBA = National School Boards Association


© 2008 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is a nonprofit interstate compact that helps state leaders shape education policy.

To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.

Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy