For best and worst schools in Ohio, AYP status seems accurate
AYP, or “adequate yearly progress,” has
become one of the most derided parts of the federal No Child Left Behind Act,
and the accountability requirements it set in motion for states. Simply put, a
school makes AYP if it is progressing adequately enough toward meeting NCLB’s
goal of having 100 percent of children proficient in key tested subjects by
2014, and fails to meet AYP if it isn’t. States set annual targets and have
different methods for calculating whether schools are meeting these targets.
Ohio, for example, is one of nine states under the federal “Growth Model Pilot Project” allowed to incorporate its growth model into AYP
But meeting AYP is like trying to ride
an escalator that speeds up with each step you take. Most states set fairly low
proficiency targets in earlier years, and steeper ones in the
years leading up to 2014 – making it increasingly difficult to meet targets and
more likely to be labeled as failing. Take a look at Ohio’s changing target proficiency rates for math in a handful of grades over the past five years
(and looking ahead to 2014).
proficiency rates in math among Ohio’s fourth, sixth, and tenth graders over
Source: Ohio Department of Education website
Clearly, each year it gets harder for
schools to meet these targets. Even those schools serving kids well will have
an increasingly difficult time of getting the last 15, 10, or five percent of
students to proficiency. On a national level, Secretary Duncan predicted
earlier this year that as many as 80+ percent of schools could fail to meet
Pointing out this unfairness - and
AYP’s lack of utility, really – has become a common meme in education circles.
And it’s intuitive, like the law of marginal returns and the line graph that
extends into infinity. Most educators and policy people alike – even those who
have high expectations for poor kids – admit that 100 percent proficiency is
But how heinously inaccurate is the AYP
measure when you really break it down? How many schools might be mislabeled?
In Ohio, among the top-performing
schools and among the bottom tier alike, it’s surprisingly accurate according
to a rudimentary glance at the data. Using data from the recent 2010-11 report cards, we looked at schools statewide that were both low growth
(according to Ohio’s value-added data, so only those schools serving some
combination of grades 3-8) and low achieving (those with a performance index
score of less than 80 out of 120, which indicates the schools’ students are not
meeting overall proficiency targets).
Eighty-four schools statewide were low
growth and low achieving. Of these, 74 of them failed to make AYP and just six
managed to eke by under the metric. Those that were poorly performing but did
make AYP did so through the Safe Harbor provision (just one of them) and Ohio’s
growth model (four of them). One school met AYP via both escape routes.
So for the poorly performing tail end
of schools, AYP was largely accurate. But what about the best schools, the ones
allegedly penalized by rapidly increasing expectations as we hurdle toward
2014? We looked at schools that had performance index scores above 100 (the
state’s goal) out of 120, and that met or exceeded value-added growth
expectations. Of these 832 schools, 735 (88 percent) met AYP. Twelve percent of
these schools, then, could miss AYP and possibly be unfairly penalized, though
Ohio’s accountability system has few sanctions for those schools that are
otherwise deemed “Excellent” or “Effective” but miss AYP. (The only really
adverse impact is missing out on a bump up
This doesn’t mean that NCLB isn’t in
desperate need of an overhaul, or that AYP should
be a mainstay in the next iteration of the law – especially among states like
Ohio with so many other useful achievement indicators. However, at least for
now we know that among the best schools in the state, relatively few are
missing AYP. And among failing schools, most of them merit their AYP label.