Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Might Growth Models Be Allowed Under the No Child Left Behind Act?

Publication Date: August 2005

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Education

Type:

Abstract:

A key concept embodied in the accountability provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA, P.L. 107-110), is that of adequate yearly progress (AYP). In order to be eligible for grants under ESEA Title I, Part A -- Education for Disadvantaged Pupils -- states must implement standards of AYP that are applicable to all public schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state, and are based primarily on the scores of pupils on state assessments. Schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for two or more consecutive years face a variety of consequences.

The primary model of AYP under the NCLBA currently is a group status model. Such models set threshold levels of performance, expressed in terms of the percentage of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level on state assessments of reading and mathematics, that must be met by all pupils as a group, as well as pupils in designated demographic subgroups, in order for any school or LEA to make AYP, whatever the performance of individual pupils in previous years. Current law also includes a secondary model of AYP, a "safe harbor" provision, under which a school or LEA may make AYP if, among pupil groups who did not meet the primary AYP standard, the percentage of pupils who are not at the proficient or higher level declines by at least 10%, and those pupil groups make progress on at least one other academic indicator in the state's AYP standards.

Substantial interest has been expressed in the possible use of individual/cohort growth models to meet the AYP requirements of the NCLBA. Such AYP models are not consistent with certain statutory provisions of the NCLBA, as currently interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Many proponents of growth models for school/LEA AYP see them as being more fair and accurate than the models currently employed to meet NCLBA requirements, primarily because they take into consideration the currently widely varying levels of achievement of different pupil groups.

Growth models generally recognize the fact that different schools and pupils have very different starting points in their achievement levels, and recognize progress being made at all levels. Growth models of AYP have the disadvantage of implicitly setting lower thresholds or expectations for some pupil groups and/or schools. Although any growth model deemed consistent with the NCLBA would likely need to incorporate the act's ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement by 2013-2014, the majority of such models used currently or in the past do not include such goals, and might allow disadvantaged schools and pupils to remain at relatively low levels of achievement for significant periods of time. Growth models of AYP may be quite complicated, and may address the accountability purposes of the NCLBA less directly and clearly than the currently authorized AYP models.

This report will be updated when legislative or policy developments occur.