NCLB Testing Results Offer 'Complex, Muddled' Picture

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 this year and last year and from independent analyses of what will occur in the future:

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

Of the 49 states and the District of Columbia reporting the number of schools not making AYP for at least one year in 2004-05, a total of 20,948 schools failed to make AYP. This compares to 26,896 schools in those 49 states and D.C. last school year. Of these 49 states and D.C., 38 had the number of schools not making AYP decrease (more schools made AYP), while in eleven states it increased (fewer schools made AYP), and in one it stayed the same.

However, there are three important statistical reasons for why fewer schools are on the AYP list this year:

• Federal rules changes. This is the first year that the three AYP rules changes — affecting students with disabilities, English-language learners (ELL), and the 95 percent test participation rule — made by the U.S. Department of Education since December 2003 are in effect. Because U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige declared that the new, slightly more flexible rules could not be applied retroactively to last year's AYP rankings, fewer schools failed AYP this year.
• State accountability plan changes. Many states, with the approval of the Department, amended their NCLB (Title I) accountability plans and implemented changes that also make it statistically easier to achieve AYP. For example, states have more leeway in setting the minimum number of students in certain subgroups to determine whether or not those students' test scores will be counted. A state could say that a subgroup in a school district -– such as students with disabilities -– must have 50 students in order to have their test scores counted for AYP purposes; if there are just 40 students with disabilities, these students' test scores would not be part of the calculation for the district's AYP.
• Same threshold to meet. In every state the percentage of students who were required to score at proficient or above on the state's reading and math test remained the same this year as it was last year. Thus, when the same proficiency requirement is combined with two sets of easier ways to meet that requirement, more schools met the standard.

When these changes are taken into account, it becomes clear that comparing last year's scores with this year's scores is like comparing apples to oranges.

Trend #2: More schools have been found "in need of improvement" this year compared to last year.

Despite the drop-off so far in the number of schools not meeting AYP for at least one year, the number of schools failing to make AYP for two or more years has almost doubled. Of all 50 states and the District of Columbia reporting the number of schools not making AYP for two or more years in 2004-05, a total of 10,991 schools failed to make AYP for at least 2 years..

This compares to 6,256 schools in all states and D.C. last school year. Of all states and D.C., 7 had the number of schools not making AYP for at least two years decrease (fewer schools in need of improvement) and 44 states had the number of schools in this category increase.

This trend is especially significant because those schools receiving federal Title I aid for disadvantaged children that are labeled "in need of improvement" 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, and the 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:  More school districts are failing to meet AYP than are schools.

In almost all of the states that have reported information on school districts, the percentage of school districts not meeting AYP is higher than the percentage of schools not meeting AYP.

Examples of such states include Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. 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 827 schools given an "A" rating by Gov. 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. 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 day the test was given. 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.

The threshold to meet AYP (the percentage of students who score proficient or above) remained the same this year as for last year in many states. However, this threshold will rise in most states next year, making it even more difficult for many schools and school districts to meet federal standards.

Independent studies in at least five states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, and Minnesota) 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 be found failing to meet AYP.                            

Conclusion:

Many schools and school districts are seeing real academic progress, due to proven reforms such as small class sizes and teacher training and years of hard work by dedicated educators.

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 help.

For more information, contact:

Joel Packer       202-822-7329
Manager, ESEA Policy

Dan Kaufman     202-822-7268         
National Media Coordinator
for Great Public Schools