Two More States Get Nod to Use 'Growth Models' for AYP

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has approved two more states, Iowa and Ohio, to utilize growth models under the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act.

NEA and most other major education groups support the use of growth models that measure student academic progress over time as the basis for determining the AYP of schools and districts.

Nine states had applied in this round to use growth models: Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Hawaii, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

This brings to seven the number of states that have been approved. In May 2006, North Carolina and Tennessee were approved to use growth models for the AYP results based on the tests in the 2005-06 school year.

In November 2006, Delaware and Arkansas were approved to use a growth model for the 2006-07 school year. Florida was given conditional approval, the condition being that it's system of standards and assessments under NCLB receive final approval from the Department of Education -- which it has not yet received.

The new announcement gives Iowa full approval, but conditions Ohio's approval on the state's revising its minimum number of students in a subgroup required to count for measuring AYP, so that it has a uniform number for all subgroups.

States had been allowed to set higher minimum "N" sizes for the students with disabilities subgroup and/or the ELL subgroup, but based on a recent final ELL regulation, that is no longer permitted. "N" represents the smallest size each subgroup can be for measuring AYP.

Since the Secretary has stated that no more than 10 states will be approved for growth model pilots, that still leaves three slots for future use by additional states, if Spellings allows additional states to apply.

The official news release describing the announcement is available online and additional details including all the states' applications are available here at the Department of Education Web site.

In another significant development, the Secretary recently announced that as part of its process of reviewing all states' systems of standards and assessments, the Department of Education will tell each state by July 1 of its revised status regarding its system of standards and assessments. To date, almost five and a half years after enactment of NCLB, only 20 states have received final approval.

An Update on State Standards and Assessment Systems (PDF, 2 pages ) is available at the Department Web site.

Each state will be placed in one of the following categories:

Full Approval or Full Approval with Recommendations

For States with a standards and assessment system designated Full Approval or Full Approval with Recommendations, no additional action is required.

Approval Expected

Some States will administer a standards and assessment system in grades 3-8 and high school in 2006-07 that the evidence to date suggests is fully compliant with the statutory and regulatory requirements. There may be certain minor elements of the State's system, however, that may not be complete by July 1, 2007, due to the nature of assessment development.

The State must provide the Department a timeline for the completion and submission for peer review of the evidence necessary to resolve all outstanding matters. The State must complete this work as soon as possible, but before administering its assessments in 2007-08.

A State in this category will have a condition placed on its fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award. While the Department believes the State has administered a fully compliant system, in the event the evidence submitted does not bear this out, a State in this category would then be designated Approval Pending.

Approval Pending

Some States will administer a standards and assessment system for which the evidence submitted by July 1, 2007, indicates it does not meet all of the requirements of the ESEA. These States will be further delineated based upon whether the evidence submitted by July 1 indicates that:

There are only significant issues with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards or an assessment for limited English proficient students. For example, the evidence submitted may indicate concerns regarding the reliability of results due to the wide range of student work collected and the scoring rubric employed.

A State in this category will have a condition placed on its fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award and will be placed under Mandatory Oversight, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §80.12. In addition, the State must enter into an agreement with the Department demonstrating that the State has made a commitment and investment of resources to resolve all outstanding issues for the 2007-08 administration of its assessments.

The agreement will include a mutually acceptable timeline for how and when the remaining work toward having a fully approved standards and assessment system will be accomplished. The State must submit regular reports of its progress along this timeline for review. In addition, the State must submit evidence at mutually acceptable points for review by the peers and Department staff in order to ensure the State's continued progress.

If, at any point, the State does not submit the evidence required or does not administer a standards and assessment system in 2007-08 that meets all NCLB requirements, the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold all or a portion of the State's Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in the State. Any State in this category will be expected to join one of the Partnerships with the Department.

There are significant issues with a State's general assessments for grades 3-8 and high school as well as, possibly, substantive issues with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards or an assessment for limited English proficient students. For example, the evidence submitted may indicate that the assessment system lacks sufficient documentation of validity and reliability.

A State in this category will have a condition placed on its fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award. In addition, the Department may withhold, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, 25 percent of the State's Title I, Part A administrative funds, which would revert to local educational agencies in the State. A State in this category will also be asked to enter into a Compliance Agreement with the Department.

A compliance agreement is a statutory remedy authorized by §457 of the General Education Provisions Act. Its purpose is to bring a State into full compliance with applicable requirements as soon as feasible. The Department does not anticipate a Compliance Agreement would exceed two years.

May 2007