No Child Left Behind
Below is the text of an e-mail message I received today from the Utah State Office of Education. Though long, it provides great information on No Child Left Behind and how Utah is doing.
Dear Public Education Supporter:
You’ve probably already read about how well Utah’s public school students performed on this year’s federal No Child Left Behind Act’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) report. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington asked that I send you some more information about the report so you’ll know just how well our teachers and students are doing, and in what areas we still need to improve.
I know your time is valuable, so I will start with the highlights and leave the explanation for later in the letter.
805 of 923 schools, or 87 percent, made AYP this year
The 87 percent of schools that made AYP did so even while academic targets in both math and language arts were raised
Of the 13 percent of schools that didn’t make AYP, 39 percent (or 59 schools) missed AYP in only one category; in other words, 92 percent of Utah’s public schools either made AYP or missed in only one category
By far, the biggest group of students to not make AYP were students with disabilities in the category of language arts; this was followed by students with disabilities in math and then by economically disadvantaged students in language arts
I have attached a document that will let you look at pie and bar charts to give you further information about which students in Utah are not making AYP and in what areas. To help you better understand how those numbers are generated, here is some background:
What is No Child Left Behind? No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the sum of the federal rules governing public education. Before President Bush signed NCLB into law in 2002, the act was known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Federal education rules, for the most part, have traditionally dealt with education equity and students with disabilities. Under NCLB, all schools were required to annually test all students to ensure their proficiency in language arts and math. States were allowed, within parameters, to define proficient, and, again within parameters, determine how all students could reach full proficiency by the year 2014. Utah uses the existing criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) given annually to students to measure proficiency. Students who pass the test are considered proficient. States who do not meet the testing requirements of NCLB jeopardize their federal school funding. In Utah’s case, it’s about 8 percent of our funds, most of them directed to Title I schools (schools where there is a high rate of poverty).
What is AYP? Utah must have a certain percentage of students be grade-level proficient in math and language arts based on CRT scores. From 2002-2004 in elementary schools, Utah’s goal was to have 65 percent proficient in language arts and 57 percent in math. For 2005, that raised to 71 percent in language arts and 64 percent in math. For secondary students, the 2002-04 goals were 64 percent in language arts and 35 percent in math. In 2005 that goal was raised to 70 percent in language arts and 47 percent in math. Utah and other states have very little leeway in testing students with disabilities (that is, students who receive special education services) or students who are not yet proficient in English. Many states have cried foul over demanding students who have learning disabilities meet the same standard as other students or that students who are not yet fluent in English take tests in English. Regardless, NCLB will require all states to have 100 percent of students proficient by 2014. We continue to move incrementally to that goal.
Why is Utah’s secondary student math goal so low? Utah is in a unique situation for secondary math. The subject on which NCLB requires us to test high school students is Algebra. In Utah, most students will take Algebra before they enter the ninth grade, the first year that counts as high school. In effect, the only high school students we are testing for NCLB in math are students who are already struggling in the subject. Though the goal is lower now than it is in other areas, it will still rise to 100 percent by 2014. Most students, however, won’t be part of that group since they passed Algebra in junior high or middle school.
How do you determine if a school has made AYP? The first step is participation. If schools don’t test 95 percent of their students and 95 percent of each of their existing subgroups (Asian, African American, American Indian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited-English Proficient and Students with Disabilities), then the school does not make AYP based on participation regardless of the students’ test scores. If any one subgroup fails to meet participation goals, the school does not make AYP.
Step two is academic achievement. If 65 percent of a school’s elementary students (and 65 percent students in each and every subgroup) pass their language arts CRT, and if 57 of your elementary students (and 57 percent of students in each and every subgroup) pass their math CRT, then the school makes the academic achievement AYP. The percentages change for secondary students. If any one subgroup does not meet the academic goal, the school does not make AYP.
In short, there are 40 ways to not make AYP (whole school plus, potentially, nine demographic components times two ways to miss [participation or academic achievement] times two tests [math and language arts]) and only one way to make it.
I note that schools can either make AYP or make AYP with safe harbor. What’s the difference? Safe harbor is a way of acknowledging that not all schools are starting the race to full proficiency from the same place. There are some schools in Utah where, due to whatever advantages, most students area already proficient. Other schools, due to whatever disadvantages, have a long way to go just to achieve our interim proficiency goals. Safe harbor allows schools who have not met the proficiency goal, but who have moved scores up by at least 10 percent to claim their stake in AYP. Safe harbor celebrates growth in school test scores. It’s something to be proud of.
Why does there appear to be a problem with students with disabilities making AYP? We think the problem is definitional. NCLB, again with very few exceptions, requires we test all students on grade level for proficiency. If a student has no learning disabilities, we agree with that level of testing. If the student does have documented learning disabilities, then we think it unfair to test that child on grade level. If, for example, a sixth grade student is capable of reading only on a third-grade reading level, Utah’s position is that the child should be subject to the third grade language arts CRT. NCLB insists the student be tested on sixth grade material.
What do you see in this year’s AYP report? First, the Utah State Office of Education sends out its congratulations to our teachers, students and parents. This is a great report. We raised the bar and the vast majority of schools are still clearing it.
Obviously, we are concerned about our students with disabilities. There are about 52,000 such students in Utah public schools and we won’t forget about them, but we’re still not sure AYP is adequately measuring their achievement. We will continue to monitor this situation.
We also have concerns about the number of limited-English proficient students not making AYP, but again, if we can keep them in our system long enough to bring them to fluency in English, I’m confident their test scores will increase.
One of our biggest concerns is the number of schools missing AYP because of their economically disadvantaged students. Unless we can do more for these students, unless we can get the teachers and other resources we need to boost achievement here, the cycle of poverty will perpetuate in our state.
The achievement gap between white and Asian students and other ethnic minorities also continues to be problematic, although it doesn’t show itself as well in the AYP report because of the relatively small numbers of ethnic minority students in Utah. This must continue to be an area of focus for us and for our local districts.
I hope this report has been helpful to you. If you would like to see individual school AYP reports, they are available online at http://www.usoe.org/ under the heading “School Report Cards,” or directly at http://bionic.usoe.k12.ut.us:8080/u-passweb/UpassServlet.
We at the Utah State Office of Education are always happy to answer your questions as well.
Dear Public Education Supporter:
You’ve probably already read about how well Utah’s public school students performed on this year’s federal No Child Left Behind Act’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) report. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington asked that I send you some more information about the report so you’ll know just how well our teachers and students are doing, and in what areas we still need to improve.
I know your time is valuable, so I will start with the highlights and leave the explanation for later in the letter.
805 of 923 schools, or 87 percent, made AYP this year
The 87 percent of schools that made AYP did so even while academic targets in both math and language arts were raised
Of the 13 percent of schools that didn’t make AYP, 39 percent (or 59 schools) missed AYP in only one category; in other words, 92 percent of Utah’s public schools either made AYP or missed in only one category
By far, the biggest group of students to not make AYP were students with disabilities in the category of language arts; this was followed by students with disabilities in math and then by economically disadvantaged students in language arts
I have attached a document that will let you look at pie and bar charts to give you further information about which students in Utah are not making AYP and in what areas. To help you better understand how those numbers are generated, here is some background:
What is No Child Left Behind? No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the sum of the federal rules governing public education. Before President Bush signed NCLB into law in 2002, the act was known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Federal education rules, for the most part, have traditionally dealt with education equity and students with disabilities. Under NCLB, all schools were required to annually test all students to ensure their proficiency in language arts and math. States were allowed, within parameters, to define proficient, and, again within parameters, determine how all students could reach full proficiency by the year 2014. Utah uses the existing criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) given annually to students to measure proficiency. Students who pass the test are considered proficient. States who do not meet the testing requirements of NCLB jeopardize their federal school funding. In Utah’s case, it’s about 8 percent of our funds, most of them directed to Title I schools (schools where there is a high rate of poverty).
What is AYP? Utah must have a certain percentage of students be grade-level proficient in math and language arts based on CRT scores. From 2002-2004 in elementary schools, Utah’s goal was to have 65 percent proficient in language arts and 57 percent in math. For 2005, that raised to 71 percent in language arts and 64 percent in math. For secondary students, the 2002-04 goals were 64 percent in language arts and 35 percent in math. In 2005 that goal was raised to 70 percent in language arts and 47 percent in math. Utah and other states have very little leeway in testing students with disabilities (that is, students who receive special education services) or students who are not yet proficient in English. Many states have cried foul over demanding students who have learning disabilities meet the same standard as other students or that students who are not yet fluent in English take tests in English. Regardless, NCLB will require all states to have 100 percent of students proficient by 2014. We continue to move incrementally to that goal.
Why is Utah’s secondary student math goal so low? Utah is in a unique situation for secondary math. The subject on which NCLB requires us to test high school students is Algebra. In Utah, most students will take Algebra before they enter the ninth grade, the first year that counts as high school. In effect, the only high school students we are testing for NCLB in math are students who are already struggling in the subject. Though the goal is lower now than it is in other areas, it will still rise to 100 percent by 2014. Most students, however, won’t be part of that group since they passed Algebra in junior high or middle school.
How do you determine if a school has made AYP? The first step is participation. If schools don’t test 95 percent of their students and 95 percent of each of their existing subgroups (Asian, African American, American Indian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited-English Proficient and Students with Disabilities), then the school does not make AYP based on participation regardless of the students’ test scores. If any one subgroup fails to meet participation goals, the school does not make AYP.
Step two is academic achievement. If 65 percent of a school’s elementary students (and 65 percent students in each and every subgroup) pass their language arts CRT, and if 57 of your elementary students (and 57 percent of students in each and every subgroup) pass their math CRT, then the school makes the academic achievement AYP. The percentages change for secondary students. If any one subgroup does not meet the academic goal, the school does not make AYP.
In short, there are 40 ways to not make AYP (whole school plus, potentially, nine demographic components times two ways to miss [participation or academic achievement] times two tests [math and language arts]) and only one way to make it.
I note that schools can either make AYP or make AYP with safe harbor. What’s the difference? Safe harbor is a way of acknowledging that not all schools are starting the race to full proficiency from the same place. There are some schools in Utah where, due to whatever advantages, most students area already proficient. Other schools, due to whatever disadvantages, have a long way to go just to achieve our interim proficiency goals. Safe harbor allows schools who have not met the proficiency goal, but who have moved scores up by at least 10 percent to claim their stake in AYP. Safe harbor celebrates growth in school test scores. It’s something to be proud of.
Why does there appear to be a problem with students with disabilities making AYP? We think the problem is definitional. NCLB, again with very few exceptions, requires we test all students on grade level for proficiency. If a student has no learning disabilities, we agree with that level of testing. If the student does have documented learning disabilities, then we think it unfair to test that child on grade level. If, for example, a sixth grade student is capable of reading only on a third-grade reading level, Utah’s position is that the child should be subject to the third grade language arts CRT. NCLB insists the student be tested on sixth grade material.
What do you see in this year’s AYP report? First, the Utah State Office of Education sends out its congratulations to our teachers, students and parents. This is a great report. We raised the bar and the vast majority of schools are still clearing it.
Obviously, we are concerned about our students with disabilities. There are about 52,000 such students in Utah public schools and we won’t forget about them, but we’re still not sure AYP is adequately measuring their achievement. We will continue to monitor this situation.
We also have concerns about the number of limited-English proficient students not making AYP, but again, if we can keep them in our system long enough to bring them to fluency in English, I’m confident their test scores will increase.
One of our biggest concerns is the number of schools missing AYP because of their economically disadvantaged students. Unless we can do more for these students, unless we can get the teachers and other resources we need to boost achievement here, the cycle of poverty will perpetuate in our state.
The achievement gap between white and Asian students and other ethnic minorities also continues to be problematic, although it doesn’t show itself as well in the AYP report because of the relatively small numbers of ethnic minority students in Utah. This must continue to be an area of focus for us and for our local districts.
I hope this report has been helpful to you. If you would like to see individual school AYP reports, they are available online at http://www.usoe.org/ under the heading “School Report Cards,” or directly at http://bionic.usoe.k12.ut.us:8080/u-passweb/UpassServlet.
We at the Utah State Office of Education are always happy to answer your questions as well.
posted by steve u. at 9/22/2005
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Fascinating. It sounds like the name of the program needs a minor adjustment: "No Child Left Behind" (except for minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged, developmentally disabled. If your school fails to make the grade, rather than create a positive and enriched learning environment, we will just leave you in the dust.
Good comment doc.
As a Conservative, I have long believed that eduction is better served at the local level. This "No Child Left Behind" fiasco flies in the face of what we "thought" we were electing as President.
We need to shut down the No Child Left Behind Bill (and the Department of Education while we're at it), and return the educational decisions of our children back to the individual states, where they belong
As a teacher Chris, I agree with you.
<< Home