More Schools Are Failing NCLB Law's
'Adequate Yearly Progress' Requirements

Emerging Trends Under the Law's Annual Rating System

NEA and its 2.7 million members support the goals of the so-called "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law -- high expectations for every child, regardless of background or abilities. Unfortunately, the picture presented so far by NCLB's system of test results and ratings is complex, muddled, and often misleading.

The following are key findings from a comparison of "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) results over the last three years and from independent analyses of what will occur in the future:

Trend #1:  More schools failed AYP this year compared to last year.

Of the 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) reporting the number of schools not making AYP for at least one year in the 2005-06 school year, a total of 22,873 schools failed to make AYP, 25.8 percent of all public schools (see accompanying document "Data on Schools/Districts Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress"   (PDF, 103kb, 8 pages). This compares to 21,175 schools in those 49 states and DC last school year, an increase of 1,699 schools. Of these 49 states and DC, 21 saw decreases in the number of schools not making AYP (more schools made AYP), while the other 29 saw increases (fewer schools made AYP). This reverses the trend between the 2003-04 school year and the 2004-05 school year when the number of schools making AYP increased.

However, comparing scores over time is like comparing apples to oranges.

Several recent rule changes by the Department of Education and changes in state accountability plans may have affected the number of schools failing to make AYP. Absent these changes, the number of "failing" schools for 2005-06 would have likely been higher:

• Federal rules changes. This is the second year that three AYP rules changes made by the Department of Education were in effect: changes affecting students with disabilities (the so-called one percent rule) and English-language learners (ELL), and the 95 percent test participation rule. Because former U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige prohibited retroactive application of these slightly more flexible rules to the 2003-04 AYP rankings, fewer schools failed AYP in the 2004-05 school year than the year before. In addition, states could utilize a rules change affecting students with disabilities (the interim policy for the so-called two percent rule) in determining AYP status for the 2005-06 school year. This change allowed more schools to make AYP this year then last year.
• State accountability plan changes. For the second year in a row, many states amended their Title I accountability plans and implemented changes making it statistically easier to make AYP. These changes were done with the approval of the Department of Education. Examples include:
  • Use of confidence intervals giving a wider range of schools passing grades; 
  • A larger minimum "N" size for certain subgroups such as students with disabilities and ELL students (which means fewer schools have to "count" these students' scores in determining AYP); 
  • Overall increases in the minimum "N" size for all schools and subgroups; and 
  •  A reduction in the state's minimum percent of students who have to be proficient from originally set levels.

These rules changes were counteracted by increases in every state of the percentage of students required to score at proficient or above on the state's reading and math test. This is unlike the 2004-05 school year, in which almost all states had the same threshold as the previous year.

Trend #2: The number of schools found "in need of improvement" this year is slightly larger compared to last year.

However, the number of schools failing to make AYP for two or more years has almost doubled since 2003-04. Of the 48 states and DC reporting the number of schools not making AYP for two or more years, a total of 10,669 schools failed to make AYP for at least two years. This compares to 10,573 schools in those same states last school year. Of these 48 states and DC, 29 saw a decrease in the number of schools not making AYP for at least two years (fewer schools in need of improvement), 19 states saw an increase, and one state saw no change.

This trend is especially significant because those schools labeled "in need of improvement" who are receiving federal Title I aid for disadvantaged children face sanctions. The first time a school receives this label, all of its students (not just low-income students or those who failed to meet the AYP standard) are eligible to transfer to another school within the same school district. Districts must use up to 15 percent of their Title I funds to pay the costs of transportation for any students who decide to transfer. This school transfer provision is causing chaos and confusion for parents and educators, especially in districts where there are few spaces in other schools for these students to occupy.

Trend #3:  Proportionately more school districts are failing to meet AYP than are schools.

In a majority of the states reporting information on school districts, the percentage of school districts not meeting AYP is higher than the percentage of schools not meeting AYP. States falling in this category are: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. School districts that fail to make AYP for two or more consecutive years are also subject to NCLB sanctions.

Trend #4:  Many schools that received top ratings on state accountability systems failed to make AYP.

The best example is in Florida where in the 2004-05 school year, 827 schools given an "A" rating by Governor Bush failed to make AYP. In North Carolina, 155 schools designated as North Carolina "Schools of Excellence" or "Schools of Distinction," suffered the same fate, as did 37 schools in Ohio rated as "Excellent". In Arizona, 40 of the state's top schools received federal failing labels solely because of the absence of a handful of students on the testing day. Even the Norfolk, VA Public School District, given the Broad Foundation Prize for most outstanding urban school district, was labeled as failing AYP this year. These conflicting ratings confuse parents and the public and undermine the entire concept of accountability.

Trend #5:  More and more schools and school districts will fail to meet AYP in the future.

This year, all states are required to test all children in each of grades 3-8 for the first time. Thus, more schools will test more children. This will increase the number of subgroups that exceed the minimum "N" size, resulting in more subgroups' scores counting for AYP, and making it more likely a school will fail to make AYP. In addition, the proficient threshold (the percentage of students required to score at proficient or above on the state's reading and math test) will continue to rise over the next several years, eventually reaching the mandated 100 percent proficiency level in the 2013-14 school year. This will make it even more difficult for many schools and school districts to meet federal standards.

Independent studies in several states (CA, CT, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, OH, PA, and WI) have shown that as these bars rise higher and higher, schools and school districts will find it increasingly difficult to meet AYP, and more and more will be labeled as failing. These studies project that by the year 2014-the year all students are required to be proficient in reading, math, and science-between three quarters and 99 percent of all schools will fail to meet AYP.

Trend #6: There will be virtually no funds available next year to help turn around schools "in need of improvement."

NCLB should not simply label and punish schools, but should instead provide resources to help schools put in place proven programs to close achievement gaps. Under the law, schools labeled as "in need of improvement" are supposed to receive additional resources. However, since enactment of NCLB no funds have been provided for the School Improvement grants program authorized under Title I. While four percent of each state's Title I allocation is to be set aside for school improvement grants, NCLB prohibits a state from reducing a school district's Title I allocation to fund this set-aside. Because Congress has cut Title I funding for FY 06, the vast majority of districts will already face a reduction in their Title I allocation and most states will have little to no money available for school improvement.

Conclusion: 

Proven reforms such as small class sizes and improved teacher training, and years of hard work by dedicated educators, are producing real results in many schools and school districts. But the law as currently constructed fails to give parents and educators a fair and accurate picture of which schools are improving and why. The law's bureaucratic system of standardized tests, rankings, and sanctions is also interfering with ongoing efforts to boost achievement for all children and neglecting to focus attention and resources on those individual students who need the most need help. Additional resources are needed to help improve schools that are facing sanctions, so the law becomes focused on building success, rather labeling and punishing.

Revised 1/19/06

For more information:

Joel Packer
Manager, ESEA Policy
202-822-7329