AYP was initially established as the accountability measure for Title I schools and districts in the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. At that time each state was required to develop its own formula based on state assessments. The reauthorization of Title I in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 made significant changes in the AYP requirements in order to create a more consistent approach to AYP across all states. This also required changing the focus of the results of AYP. States began working more closely with schools identified for improvement and offering additional educational options to their students.
What was AYP?
Each objective and the methods used to determine if each objective had been met are described below.
AYP Objectives |
|---|
|
Graduation or Attendance — Elementary and middle schools must have an attendance rate of at least 85% or show growth over the prior year. High schools that graduate students must have graduation rates of at least 85% or show an increase of at least 2% over the prior year. |
The Test Participation, Reading, and Mathematics objectives above apply to all students in the tested grades and to subgroups of sufficient size. The subgroups include five major ethnic groups, students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and economically disadvantaged students.
AYP calculations were based on WSAS reading and mathematics achievement levels as compared to Wisconsin's annual measurable objectives (AMO). These annual measurable objectives were based on actual achievement levels of Wisconsin students in the 2001-02 school year. While they increase over time, the same annual measurable objectives apply to all districts, schools, and student groups in the Wisconsin public school system. The goal of NCLB was that all students are proficient in Reading and Mathematics by 2013-14.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
READING |
MATHEMATICS |
|
Starting Point |
2001-02 |
61% |
37% |
|
2002-03 |
61% |
37% |
|
|
2003-04 |
61% |
37% |
|
|
Intermediate Goal |
2004-05 |
67.5% |
47.5% |
|
2005-06 |
67.5% |
47.5% |
|
|
2006-07 |
67.5% |
47.5% |
|
|
Intermediate Goal |
2007-08 |
74% |
58% |
|
2008-09 |
74% |
58% |
|
|
2009-10 |
74% |
58% |
|
|
Intermediate Goal |
2010-11 |
80.5% |
68.5% |
How was AYP calculated?
A proficiency index was calculated by assigning one point for each full academic year (FAY) student who scored in the Proficient or Advanced categories on the WSAS plus one-half point for each student scoring in the Basic category. The total points were divided by the total number of FAY students tested to calculate the proficiency index.
In Reading and Mathematics, a confidence interval may have been applied to the AYP calculation. A confidence interval increased consistency of accountability decisions similar to the margin of error associated with an opinion poll.
The Reading and Mathematics objectives also included Safe Harbor provisions for those missing the annual AYP objective. Safe Harbor allowed a school or district to demonstrate growth by showing a 10% reduction in the percent of students scoring below proficient (in the Basic/Minimal range) and reaching the criteria for another academic indicator: graduation, attendance or science. When there was a decrease in the non-proficient percentage, a confidence interval was also applied to Safe Harbor calculations.
How were AYP decisions used?
State and federal laws required the publication of school and district performance reports, and the identification of schools and districts that do not make AYP. Schools that missed the same AYP objective for two consecutive years were identified for improvement, and must begin a school improvement process that includes writing a school improvement plan. In addition, the school was required to offer parents the opportunity to send their child to another higher-performing school in the district. District AYP determinations were based on the aggregate of all students at each grade span: elementary, middle, and high school. Districts that missed the same objective at all three grade spans for two consecutive years were identified as in need of improvement. Schools and districts identified for improvement face federal sanctions if they received Title I funds.
- Criteria for Annual Review of School Performance :2006-09, 2005-06, 2004-05, 2003-04, 2002-03
- Overview of Wisconsin's Adequate Yearly Progress Model (Powerpoint - 6/03)
- Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook - This workbook identifies our state's implementation status for required elements of the state accountability system. Criteria for review of school performance beginning in 2002-03 are based on provisions in the finalized version of the workbook.
- Sanctions for Schools Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress
- Sanctions for Districts Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress
- Wisconsin Public Schools - Levels of Accountability
- Requirements for School Improvement Plan
- For a two page overview of AYP policy, review the AYP Primer.
- 2000-01 WKCE Progress Graphs and Annual Review Worksheet (Revised 7/8/02. Excel 97 is required. File is about 2.8 MB, and may take several minutes to download).
- 2001-02 WKCE Progress Graphs and Annual Review Worksheet (Revised 7/8/02. Excel 97 is required. File is about 2.8 MB, and may take several minutes to download). Using this file, you can create color graphs that display change in percents of students scoring in each of the five proficiency categories over the past four years. Sort, Copy and Paste numbers for your school and the graphs will automatically appear. This file also automatically calculates your school's CPI and compares your school's performance to the 90% rule. The results produced by this worksheet are tentative and are provided for self-assessment purposes.
- Accountability Revised 90% Rule
How was AYP reported?
Summary AYP reports were available for each Wisconsin school and district as well as examples and technical details.
Schools Identified for Improvement (SIFI) in Wisconsin Districts - View the number and percentage of schools in each district that are identified for school improvement under section 1116(c) and how long the schools have been so identified by years of testing 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11.