Adequate Yearly Progress

Last updated

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was a measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act that allowed the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the country was performing academically according to results on standardized tests. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), AYP was "the amount of annual achievement growth to be expected by students in a particular school, district, or state in the U.S. federal accountability system, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)." [1] AYP has been identified as one of the sources of controversy surrounding George W. Bush administration's Elementary and Secondary Education Act. [2] Private schools were not required to make AYP. [3] [4]

Contents

Description

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Sec. 1111 (b)(F), required that "each state shall establish a timeline for adequate yearly progress. The timeline shall ensure that not later than 12 years after the 2001-2002 school year, all students in each group described in subparagraph (C)(v) will meet or exceed the State's standards." These timelines were developed by state education agencies working under guidance from the federal government. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was the law used as the primary statute governing the federal government's role in education.

The federal government's role in this area was earlier defined under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA stated that its purpose was to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. These goals were to be achieved through financial assistance to local educational agencies for the education of children of low-income families or with disabilities. [5] In 2001, ESEA was modified and renamed the No Child Left Behind Act. [6] To its proponents, the goal of NCLB and the AYP measurement was the strengthening and improvement of the education of elementary and secondary school students.

According to the Department of Education, AYP was a diagnostic tool that determined how schools needed to improve and where financial resources were to be allocated. Former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige wrote, "The statute gives States and local educational agencies significant flexibility in how they direct resources and tailor interventions to the needs of individual schools identified for improvement... schools are held accountable for the achievement of all students, not just average student performance." [7]

The NCLB made provisions for schools that did not demonstrate adequate yearly progress. Those that did not meet AYP for two years in a row were identified as "schools in need of improvement" and were subject to immediate interventions by the State Education Agency in their state. First steps included technical assistance and then, according to the Department of Education, "more serious corrective actions" occurred if the school failed to make AYP. [8]

Purpose

The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach. This is ensured through the use of academic assessments, teacher preparation and training, rigorous curriculum and adequate and proper instructional material that will in turn aid in performance on the challenging state academic standards that all students are to meet with proficiency. This process is meant to help meet the educational needs of low-achieving children in the nation's poverty-stricken schools, and have every school performing at a national standard level. If this is achieved, then NCLB is said to have "closed the gap". This means that the achievement gap between high- and low-performing schools and children will be less prominent and all will be achieving at the same level and standard throughout the nation. Thus, there will be no child left behind and no schools identified as "schools in need of improvement". [9]

Details

Requirements

All kindergarten-through-twelfth-grade schools are required to demonstrate AYP in the areas of reading/language arts, mathematics, graduation rates for high schools and districts, and at least one other academic indicator. [10] States are in charge of developing their own criteria for meeting AYP and must submit them for approval. Upon receipt, all criteria provided will be peer reviewed by a panel including representatives, parents, teachers and state and local educational agencies. After review, the states will receive feedback and recommendations from panelists on how to better align their criteria with the statute of No Child Left Behind. These requirements include ten specific guidelines:

  1. A single statewide accountability system which is applied to all public schools and local education agencies.
  2. The state accountability system must include all public school students.
  3. A state's definition of AYP must be based on expectations for growth in student achievement that includes that all students will be proficient in reading and math by 2013–2014.
  4. A state must make annual decisions about the achievement of all public schools and local education agencies.
  5. All public schools and local education agencies will be held accountable for the achievement of all individual subgroups.
  6. A state's definition of AYP must be based primarily on the state's academic assessments.
  7. A state's definition of AYP must include graduation rates for high schools, as well as an additional indicator for middle and elementary schools, which may be selected by the states (such as attendance rates).
  8. AYP must be based on reading/language arts and mathematics achievement objectives.
  9. A state's accountability system must be statistically valid and reliable.
  10. To make AYP as a school, a state must ensure that it has assessed at least 95% of students in each subgroup (special education, English language learners, low income, race/ethnicity) enrolled. [11]

Currently, schools are allowed to appeal their AYP findings to their State Education Agency and/or the U.S. Department of Education, if applicable. Appeals have been made in account of standardized test results and data collected by testing companies such as Educational Testing Service. [12]

Assessment

The NCLB requires that states use standardized assessments in order to measure AYP. These assessments allow state education agencies to develop target starting goals for AYP. After those are developed, states must increase student achievement in gradual increments in order for 100 percent of the students to become proficient on state assessments by the 2013–14 school year. [13] The Illinois Department of Education reports, "The NCLB Act is very prescriptive with regard to how this is to be done – very little flexibility is afforded to states. The same process was used to establish starting points for reading and math." Using assessment data from 2002, the U.S. Department of Education determined what specific percentages of students each state is required to make proficient in each subject area. Special considerations were made for students with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. Once those percentages were determined, each State Department of Education is required to ensure the standards are the same for each public school, district and subgroup of students, irrespective of differences. [14]

Successful progress

Adequate Yearly Progress requires that every public school complete three requirements annually. Requirements for the percentage of growth is determined on a state-by-state basis. [15] In Illinois those requirements include:

  1. At least 95 percent of all students are tested for reading and mathematics.
  2. At least 95 percent of all students meet the minimum annual target for meeting or exceeding standards for reading and mathematics.
  3. At least 95 percent of all students meet the minimum annual target for attendance rate for elementary and middle schools or graduation rate for high schools. [14]

Additionally, state education agencies must determine the yearly progress of districts and identify districts in need of improvement. [16] Some states, including Missouri, have lowered standards in order to assure the success of their schools and districts meeting AYP. [17]

Unsuccessful progress

Every state education agency is required to determine which schools do not meet AYP every year. However, a specific designation by the U.S. Department of Education called "Federal school improvement status" applies only to schools that receive Title I funds. State education agencies are required to determine what larger goals are required of every school as they fail to perform annually. [18]

If Title I schools do not meet AYP for two consecutive years, they are placed in "Choice" School Improvement Status, which means they must develop an improvement plan, provide students the option to transfer to a different school and provide them transportation to get there, and use part of their Title I funds for professional development for their teachers and staff. If a school does not make AYP for three consecutive years, they will be in "Supplemental Services" School Improvement Status, which means that in addition to all the "Choice" requirements above, they must also use some of their Title I funds to support students by providing tutoring or after-school programs from a state-approved provider. If a school fails AYP for four years in a row they enter "Corrective Action" Improvement Status, where they must provide both "Choice" and "Supplemental Services", as well as choose one of the following: replace responsible staff, implement a new curriculum, decrease a school's management authority, appoint an external expert to advise the school, or restructure the internal organization of the school. [19] Lastly, if a school fails AYP for five years or more, they must implement one of the following:

These "other major governance restructuring" strategies were most popular in restructuring schools in 2007–2008, and allow schools to do a variety of things to improve their schools such as narrow the grade range, re-open as a theme school, close the school, create smaller learning communities, or create their own option that is not provided by the Department of Education. [19]

The option of extending NCLB-required sanctions to non-Title I schools does exist; however, there is little current research indicating the implementation of this practice. [21]

Strategies for improving AYP

State education agencies across the United States have developed numerous strategies designed to improve AYP. For instance, steps taken by the Georgia Department of Education include new and more rigorous curriculum, the placement of "graduation specialists" in each high school across the state, comprehensive high school redesign focused on rigorous and relevant education, and integrated technology throughout learning, including the Georgia Virtual School and a free online SAT prep course. [22]

However, outside critics and analysts continue to make their own suggestions on improvements for Adequate Yearly Progress. One example of this is Robert Manwaring (a Senior Policy Analyst at Education Sector), who has many suggestions at the federal, state and local levels. On the federal level, Manwaring believes that No Child Left Behind has been too "hands-off" and that states have been avoiding hard choices such as replacing people in failing schools. He believes intervention in low-performing districts has been too slow to occur. He believes the key is for the federal government to insist on heavier oversight from the states and to propose shorter timelines for quicker actions to be taken with consistently failing schools. He believes the federal government should continue to invest in school improvement, but move from a "formula-driven program" to competitive grants, which will reward schools who make drastic improvement in low-performing schools. He believes that states should be in charge of approving the "other major restructuring plans" (as discussed above) for schools, in order to ensure that they are the right steps to drastically improve student performance. Lastly, he believes Title I funding "comparability" requirements should be changed to make sure that all Title I schools receive an accurate amount of state and local funding.

On the state level, Manwaring believes that states are reluctant to intervene in low-performing schools, and that many state departments lack the experience or capacity to facilitate school turnaround anyway. He suggests that states should identify schools in need of improvement, and require districts to implement an intervention model, during which the state will provide support and monitor progress. He believes they should take control of charter schools by ensuring effective charter oversight, closing low-performing charter schools and providing a fair amount of funding and facilities to successful charters. Lastly, he states should monitor school restructuring closely and be prepared to step in when needed.

On the local level, Manwaring believes that since local school districts are closest to the schools, and have the flexibility necessary to act immediately for students, they should change their policies to ensure that schools have an equal amount of resources, and to reinforce the fact that long-term failure is unacceptable. He suggests that districts push for collective bargaining agreements that allow for improving the staff at low-performing schools, including evaluation systems that allow for the timely removal of poor performing teachers. He also believes that school leaders must be able to make radical changes quickly in order to turn around low-performing schools, with high teacher investment in such policies. Lastly, he believes that school districts need to be prepared to establish new schools in order to close the lowest-performing schools over time. [19]

Controversy

Schools across the country have restructured according to standards dictated by the federal government, rather than local needs. A principal of one such school remarked, "Putting all of the neediest special education students in a few schools seems to create insoluble challenges under No Child Left Behind." Those determinations often come down to the performance of small numbers of students that do not reflect the progress of the whole school. [23] As of 2006, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which performs math and reading assessments of national education systems, does not include special education students as a significant portion of their assessment population. [24]

Criticisms are being met with a series of innovations on the state level. In 2007, the top official of the Ohio Department of Education diagnosed that NCLB "paid no attention to whether students below proficient were making strides, or (those) above proficiency." Ohio is proposing a more subtle "growth model" that would allow schools to better demonstrate progress without jeopardizing past academic accomplishments. [25]

Another controversial concern of NCLB is that it produces unintended consequences on other school subjects. Since AYP is based mostly on standardized state testing on the subjects of math and reading, it is believed that this may cause schools to neglect other subjects. Also, NCLB is thought to provide teachers with the motive to focus energy in the classroom towards the types of questions that students will face on proficiency-based tests as opposed to other questions and topics that should be addressed equally. [26]

The New York State Department of Education is among a group of state education agencies that have voiced support for AYP. [27]

NCLB effect on teacher quality

NCLB was not set in place just to make sure students meet proficiency, but also to encourage teachers to become more qualified and agree to working in different environments depending on need. States have developed a variety of incentives to encourage this. These include tuition benefits, loan forgiveness programs, and housing assistance, to encourage people to enter the profession in general, to better their qualifications, or to work in particular school settings. NCLB required that Illinois stop the use of unqualified teachers and in place offered more training so that teachers could come back under NCLB guidelines. After this, employment of not-fully certified teachers was much less prevalent even in the schools with highest poverty and numbers of minorities, where not-fully certified teachers are most seen. [28]

Present state of NCLB

On January 8, 2002, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act. According to Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, it has created an artificial goal of proficiency that actually encouraged states to lower their standards to make it easier for students to meet goals and bring the school to meet AYP. Duncan also believes that this kind of system narrows curriculum and mislabels schools as failing, even though they may be demonstrating academic growth in other ways other than state tests. Over the years since NCLB has been in place, 44 states have made strides in raising their standards but are now having to explain why their schools are "failing". To fix this, the secretary of state believes the law needs to be less prescriptive and allow school districts to create their own improvement plans unique to their needs. In 2015, the Obama administration offered states flexibility from NCLB in exchange for their own fair and flexible plans to raise standards. So far, 42 states have shown interest in this system and are currently working with the Department of Education. Congress's efforts to reauthorize NCLB [29] ultimately led in 2015 to the Every Student Succeeds Act, which replaced it, modifying but not replacing provisions related to standardized testing.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Child Left Behind Act</span> 2002 United States education reform law; repealed 2015

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress promoted by the Presidency of George W. Bush. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It mandated standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. To receive federal school funding, states had to create and give assessments to all students at select grade levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</span> 1965 US law

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized by the revised No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</span> United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

The New England Common Assessment Program was a series of reading, writing, mathematics and science achievement tests, administered annually, which were developed in response to the Federal No Child Left Behind Act. Starting in 2005, school students in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont participated in NECAP, and Maine joined the assessment program in 2009. It was a collaborative project of the New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont departments of education, with assistance from the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessments. Measured Progress, an assessment contractor from Dover, New Hampshire, coordinates production, administration, scoring and reporting.

Warren Township High School (WTHS), or Warren, is a public four-year high school located in Gurnee, a northern suburb of Chicago, in Lake County, in Illinois. Because of size of the student body, the school is split across two campuses: the O'Plaine Road Campus for freshmen and sophomores, and the Almond Road Campus for juniors and seniors. It is part of Warren Township High School District 121.

The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) was passed in California in 1999 as the first step in developing a comprehensive system to hold students, schools, and districts accountable for improving student performance. The system establishes a code of conduct for all teachers stating that their overall objective for the student is to achieve and progress academically. The PSAA was passed to make sure that student excel in school, and are able to perform with the best of their abilities. It is to make sure that teachers and school staff encourage students and instruct them in different ways. In the PSAA, it covers three main components that ensure students growth; the Academic Performance Index (API), the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), and the Governor's Performance Award (GPA) program. Each of these components is used to develop and emerge a students education, and even make the PSAA work smoothly and correctly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual Education Act</span> Language education law of the United States

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA), also known as the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, was the first United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was both approved by the 90th United States Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. In 1969 there was a 50% drop out rate among Mexican American students who struggled to keep up with their English-speaking peers in school; Representative Tony Abril argued that the Bilingual Education Act would reduce this number. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

The Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) was an assessment required by the No Child Left Behind Act administered by the Unit of Student Assessment in the Colorado Department of Education (CDE). The CSAP was designed to measure how well students are learning material from the Colorado Model Content Standards, the established content standards that all Colorado public school students should learn. The CSAP only tested four of the thirteen subject areas in the Colorado Model Content Standards.

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - formerly known as the Bilingual Education Act - is a federal grant program described in Title III Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and again as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This section is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The statute states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements. In 2011, ESEA Title III awards were granted to 56 SEAs and the average award given to an individual SEA was $12,158,046.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sapientis</span> Nonprofit organization based in San Juan, Puerto Rico

Sapientis is a nonprofit organization based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, that improves public education to reduce poverty, stimulate economic growth, and enhance the standard of living in Puerto Rico.

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) is a standardized test administered in public schools in the state of Pennsylvania. Students in grades 3-8 are assessed in English language arts skills and mathematics. Students in grades 4 and 8 are also assessed in skills relating to natural science, including the field of data interpretation and analysis. Since 2013, high school students have taken the Keystone Exam in place of the PSSA for their standardized testing. The PSSA's were made by a company in New Jersey. The PSSA is written, owned and administered by Pearson Education. There are reporting categories for each subject which list eligible content to be tested in each grade. Assessment Anchors specify what is considered eligible content for each grade level tested. A Proficient or Advanced level is needed to be able to qualify as passing the PSSA.

Education in Virginia addresses the needs of students from pre-kindergarten through adult education. Virginia's educational system consistently ranks in the top ten states on the U.S. Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, with Virginia students outperforming the average in almost all subject areas and grade levels tested. The 2010 Quality Counts report ranked Virginia's K–12 education fourth best in the country. All school divisions must adhere to educational standards set forth by the Virginia Department of Education, which maintains an assessment and accreditation regime known as the Standards of Learning to ensure accountability. In 2008, 81% of high school students graduated on-time after four years. The 1984 Virginia Assembly stated that, "Education is the cornerstone upon which Virginia's future rests."

Olomana High & Intermediate School part of Hawaii Department of Education, is an alternative-education school which offers classes for students in seventh grade through twelfth grade. Located at 42-471 Kalanianaole Highway Kailua, Hawaii 96734, United States, the school has about 250 students attending.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arkansas Department of Education</span> Government organization in Little Rock, United States

The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is a cabinet-level agency of the Arkansas state government overseeing public education for K-12, higher education institutions, and career and technical education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Centennial High School (Compton, California)</span> Public high school in Compton, California

Centennial High School is a public high school in Compton, California, operating as part of the Compton Unified School District.

The Turnaround Model is one of four strategies available to American local education agencies (LEAs) under the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants programs of the Obama administration. The other three programs include Restart, Transformation, and School Closures.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium featuring two states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Educational Activity, and the Bureau of Indian Education, that work to create and deploy a standard set of K–12 assessments in Mathematics and English, based on the Common Core State Standards.

The highly qualified teacher provision is one of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The term highly qualified teachers (HQT) comes from the original language of Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title II of NCLB designates federal funds to educational agencies for the purpose of improving the student achievement through the professional development of highly qualified teachers and principals. To qualify for this funding, states must comply with a series of conditions stipulated in NCLB, and track their progress toward goals each state sets. Title II was originally known as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, and has undergone several reauthorizations, though the original intent has remained relatively intact. The main goals of the highly qualified teacher provision is to ensure that every classroom is staffed by a teacher deemed "highly qualified" under conditions set by NCLB. As some point out, this section of NCLB is quite at odds with the general thrust of NCLB because it focuses on school inputs rather than student outcomes. The sections of NCLB designated to HQTs allocates the majority of the funds to the states and does not clearly define at the federal level what is and what is not a highly qualified teacher, allowing for more local definitions of this term. This provision has come under much scrutiny, as it is up to states to decide how to measure highly qualified, and states are not holding their teachers to the same level of rigor across the country. Since its reauthorization in 2001, Title II has yet to reach its stated goal of ensuring that 100% of teachers in public schools in the United States are highly qualified.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elementary schools in the United States</span> Primary education in the United States

In the United States, elementary schools are the main point of delivery of primary education, for children between the ages of 4–11 and coming between pre-kindergarten and secondary education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Every Student Succeeds Act</span> 2015 United States education reform law

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law passed in December 2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy. The law replaced its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified but did not eliminate provisions relating to the periodic standardized tests given to students. Like the No Child Left Behind Act, ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the federal government's expanded role in public education.

References

  1. ↑ National Council on Measurement in Education http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary1.aspx?hkey=4bb87415-44dc-4088-9ed9-e8515326a061#anchorA Archived 2017-07-22 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ New York State Department of Education. (nd) The George W. Bush Years: NCLB - Adequate Yearly Progress. [ permanent dead link ]States' Impact on Federal Education Policy.
  3. ↑ (nd) "No Educator Left Behind: Private Schools". Archived October 9, 2009, at the Wayback Machine Education World. Retrieved 7/5/07.
  4. ↑ (2003) "Adequate Yearly Progress: North Layton Junior High Results." Archived February 9, 2006, at the Wayback Machine Davis School District, Utah. Retrieved 7/5/07.
  5. ↑ "Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)(P.L. 89-10)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 14, 2009.
  6. ↑ Dillon, Sam. "No Child Left Behind Act". The New York Times.
  7. ↑ Paige, R. (2002) "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary," U.S. Department of Education. 7/25/02. Retrieved 6/31/07.
  8. ↑ (nd) [ "The Facts About...Making Gains Every Year".] U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/31/07.
  9. ↑ "Title I. SEC. 1001. Statement of Purpose".
  10. ↑ (nd). US Department of Education. Retrieved 5/14/2013
  11. ↑ (nd)Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary . US Department of Education. Retrieved 10/29/11.
  12. ↑ (2006) 2005-2006 Accountability Progress Reporting. Archived July 3, 2007, at the Wayback Machine California Department of Education. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  13. ↑ (nd) "Adequate Yearly Progress." Archived June 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  14. 1 2 (nd) Frequently asked questions about AYP. Archived 2007-11-23 at the Wayback Machine Illinois State Board of Education. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  15. ↑ Popham, W.J. (2004) "Chapter 2: Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Little letters, big impact," America's "Failing" Schools: How Parents and Teachers Can Cope with No Child Left Behind. Routledge. p. 22.
  16. ↑ (2002) "No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference." DIANE Publishing. p. 17.
  17. ↑ Clark, C. (2004) "State lowers test standard to meet federal guidelines," Southeast Missourian 9/15/04. Retrieved 6/30/07.
  18. ↑ Case, A.G. (2004) How to Get the Most Reform for Your Reform Money. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 55.
  19. 1 2 3 Manwaring, Robert.(2010)RESTRUCTURING ‘RESTRUCTURING’: Improving Interventions for Low-Performing Schools and Districts. Archived April 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 10/29/11.
  20. ↑ CCSRI. (2008) "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) "School Restructuring What Works When? A Guide for Education Leaders." Retrieved 6/24/09.
  21. ↑ Education Commission of the States. (2004) "Indicator 2: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)" Archived August 4, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Report to the Nation. Author. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  22. ↑ (2006) Almost 100 Schools Lose Needs Improvement Label". Archived October 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  23. ↑ Marshall, T. (2007) "Two views on school grades: Federal reports show progress, but state grades slip at several schools based on FCAT." St. Petersburg Times. 6/30/07. Retrieved 6/30/07.
  24. ↑ "PISA 2006 and the Participation of Students with Special Educational Needs". OECD/Joint Research Centre- European Commission, Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages in the Baltic States, South Eastern Europe and Malta: Educational Policies and Indicators, OECD Publishing. Retrieved 5/9/12.
  25. ↑ Seeton, M.G. (2007) "State model may change assessment of student progress" Archived September 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine . CantonRep.com. 6/24/07. Retrieved 6/29/07.
  26. ↑ "Evaluating NCLB".[ permanent dead link ]
  27. ↑ No Child Left Behind Archived 2007-05-09 at the Wayback Machine . Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005. New York State Education Agency. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  28. ↑ "The Changing Distribution of Teacher Qualifications Across Schools: A Statewide Perspective Post-NCLB".[ permanent dead link ]
  29. ↑ "After 10 years, it's time for a new NCLB". Archived from the original on September 9, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.