Draft Bill: Changes to AYP

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

Growth models: States could measure growth in individual student achievement over time instead of comparing cohorts of students. All student subgroups would have to be proficient in math and reading by the original law’s 2013-14 deadline or else be “on a trajectory” to reach proficiency within three years.

Multiple measures: States could use indicators besides their math and reading tests for accountability, including graduation, dropout, and college-going rates; percentages of students successfully completing endof- course exams for college-prep courses; and assessments in government, history, science, and writing.

Annual goals: Those other measures could count for 15 percent of an elementary school’s annual accountability goals and 25 percent of a high school’s goals. Local tests: Under a 15-year pilot project, states could include, in addition to statewide assessments, a system of local tests aligned to state standards.

Subgroup size: The plan would set a uniform “N” size of no more than 30 students. The term refers to the minimum number of students a school or district must have from a subgroup, such as English-language learners, for the group to count for accountability purposes. The greater the size, the easier it is to exclude certain subgroups from AYP calculations.

See Also

Confidence intervals: The plan would set a maximum “confidence interval” of 95 percent. A confidence interval is a statistical technique that permits a school or subgroup to make AYP, even if it misses its target, as long as its performance falls within a band set around that target, similar to the margin of error in polling data.


Provide incentives for states to collaborate with higher education and business to set standards aligned to the demands of college and the workforce.

Set a single definition of graduation rates. States would have to set goals for improving such rates and break down graduation data by subgroup.

Authorize money for Title I districts for core-curriculum development and expand instructional time for subjects such as art, music, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history, and physical education.

Ensure that Title I schools are not shortchanged in state and local funding formulas by requiring that actual teacher salaries be included in measuring comparability of resources between those schools and non-Title I schools.

Establish a more transparent peer-review process for states’ NCLB accountability plans.

Create differentiated consequences for schools that fail to make AYP for only one or two subgroups, in contrast with those that miss achievement targets for more subgroups.

SOURCES: House Education and Labor Committee; Education Week

Vol. 27, Issue 2, Page 21

Published in Print: September 5, 2007, as Draft Bill: Changes to AYP
Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories