Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
Updated October 31, 2008
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
Summary
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
authorizes financial aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of
disadvantaged children and youth at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels.
Over the last several years, the accountability provisions of this program have been
increasingly focused on achievement and other outcomes for participating pupils and
schools. Since 1994, and particularly under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), a key concept embodied in these requirements is that of “adequate yearly
progress (AYP)” for schools, LEAs, and states. AYP is defined primarily on the
basis of aggregate scores of various groups of pupils on state assessments of
academic achievement. The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the
basis for identifying schools and LEAs where performance is unsatisfactory, so that
inadequacies may be addressed first through provision of increased support and,
ultimately, a variety of “corrective actions.”
Under NCLB, the Title I-A requirements for state-developed standards of AYP
were substantially expanded. AYP calculations must be disaggregated — determined
separately and specifically for not only all pupils but also for several demographic
groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state. In addition, while AYP
standards had to be applied previously only to pupils, schools, and LEAs
participating in Title I-A, AYP standards under NCLB must be applied to all public
schools, LEAs, and to states overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants.
However, corrective actions for failing to meet AYP standards need be applied only
to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A. Another major break with the pre-
NCLB period is that state AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement
toward meeting an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or advanced level
of achievement by 2014.
The overall percentage of public schools identified as failing to make AYP for
one or more years on the basis of test scores in 2006-2007 was approximately 28%
of all public schools. The percentage of schools for individual states varied from 4%
to 75%. Approximately 12% of Title I-A participating schools were in the “needs
improvement” status (i.e., they had failed to meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive
years or more) on the basis of AYP determinations for 2005-2006 and preceding
school years.
The AYP provisions of NCLB are challenging and complex, and they have
generated substantial interest and debate. Debates regarding NCLB provisions on
AYP have focused on the provision for an ultimate goal, use of confidence intervals
and data-averaging, population diversity effects, minimum pupil group size (n),
separate focus on specific pupil groups, number of schools identified and state
variations therein, the 95% participation rule, state variations in assessments and
proficiency standards, and timing. The authorization for ESEA programs expired at
the end of FY2008, and the 111^th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend
and extend the ESEA. This report will be updated regularly to reflect major
legislative developments and available information.

Contents
Background: Title I Outcome Accountability and the AYP Concept..........1
General Elements of AYP Provisions..............................2
Generic AYP Factors.......................................2
AYP Provisions Under the IASA of 1994...........................5
Concerns About the AYP Provisions of the IASA................6
AYP Under NCLB Statute...........................................8
ED Regulations and Guidance on Implementation of the
AYP Provisions of NCLB..................................11
Recent Developments.........................................12
Regulations Proposed in April 2008 on Title I-A
Assessments and Accountability.........................12
Growth Models..........................................13
Data on Schools and LEAs Identified as Failing to Meet AYP..............26
Schools Failing to Meet AYP Standards for One or More Years........26
Schools Failing to Meet AYP Standards for Two Consecutive
Years or More...........................................27
LEAs Failing to Meet AYP Standards.............................27
Issues in State Implementation of NCLB Provisions......................29
In troduction .................................................29
Ultimate Goal................................................30
Confidence Intervals and Data-Averaging..........................32
Population Diversity Effects....................................33
Minimum Pupil Group Size (n)..............................33
Separate Focus on Specific Pupil Groups......................34
Number of Schools Identified and State Variations Therein............36
95% Participation Rule........................................38
State Variations in Assessments and Proficiency Standards............38
List of Tables
Table 1. Categories of Pupils with Disabilities with Respect to
Achievement Standards, Assessments, and AYP Determinations
Under ESEA Title I-A.........................................22
Table 2. Reported Percentage of Public Schools and Local Educational
Agencies (LEAs) Failing to Make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
on the Basis of Spring 2007 Assessment Results....................28

Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP): Implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act
Background:
Title I Outcome Accountability
and the AYP Concept
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the
largest federal K-12 education program, authorizes financial aid to local educational
agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children and youth at the
preschool, elementary, and secondary levels.
Since the 1988 reauthorization of the ESEA (The Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert
T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988,
or “School Improvement Act,” P.L. 100-297), the accountability provisions of this
program have been increasingly focused on achievement and other outcomes for
participating pupils and schools. Since the subsequent ESEA reauthorization in 1994
(the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382), and particularly under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), a key concept
embodied in these outcome accountability requirements is that of “adequate yearly
progress (AYP)” for schools, LEAs, and (more recently) states overall. The primary
purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the basis for identifying schools and
LEAs where performance is inadequate, so that these inadequacies may be addressed,
first through provision of increased support and, ultimately, through a variety of
“corrective actions.”¹
This report is intended to provide an overview of the AYP concept and several
related issues, a description of the AYP provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act,
and an analysis of the implementation of these provisions by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) and the states. The authorization for ESEA programs expired at the
end of FY2008, and the 111^th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend
and extend the ESEA. This report will be updated regularly to reflect major
legislative developments and available information.

¹ These corrective actions, as well as possible performance-based awards, are not discussed
in detail in this report. For information on them, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12
Education: Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110),
by Gail McCallion, et al., Section 4.

General Elements of AYP Provisions
ESEA Title I, Part A has included requirements for participating LEAs and
states to administer assessments of academic achievement to participating pupils, and
to evaluate LEA programs at least every two years, since the program was initiated
in 1965. However, relatively little attention was paid to school- or LEA-wide
outcome accountability until adoption of the School Improvement Act of 1988.²
Under the School Improvement Act, requirements for states and LEAs to evaluate the
performance of Title I-A schools and individual participating pupils were expanded.
In addition, LEAs and states were for the first time required to develop and
implement improvement plans for pupils and schools whose performance was not
improving. However, in comparison to current Title I-A outcome accountability
provisions, these requirements were broad and vague. States and LEAs were given
little direction as to how they were to determine whether performance was
satisfactory, or how performance was to be defined, with one partial exception.
The exception applied to schools conducting schoolwide programs under Title
I-A. In schoolwide programs, Title I-A funds may be used to improve instruction for
all pupils in the school, rather than being targeted on only the lowest-achieving
individual pupils in the school (as under the other major Title I-A service model,
targeted assistance schools). Under the 1988 version of the ESEA, schoolwide
programs were limited to schools where 75% or more of the pupils were from low-
income families (currently this threshold has been reduced to 40%). The School
Improvement Act required schoolwide programs, in order to maintain their special
authority, to demonstrate that the academic achievement of pupils in the school was
higher than either of the following: (a) the average level of achievement for pupils
participating in Title I-A in the LEA overall; or (b) the average level of achievement
for disadvantaged pupils enrolled in that school during the three years preceding
schoolwide program implementation.
The embodiment of outcome accountability in the specific concept of AYP
began with the 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Under the IASA,
states participating in Title I-A were required to develop AYP standards as a basis
for systematically determining whether schools and LEAs receiving Title I-A grants
were performing at an acceptable level. Failure to meet the state AYP standards was
to become the basis for directing technical assistance, and ultimately corrective
actions, toward schools and LEAs where performance was consistently unacceptable.
Generic AYP Factors. Before proceeding to a description of the Title I-A
AYP provisions under the IASA of 1994, we outline below the general types of
major provisions frequently found in AYP provisions, actual or proposed.
Primary Basis: They are based primarily on aggregate measures of academic
achievement by pupils. As long as Title I-A has contained AYP provisions, it has
provided that these be based ultimately on state standards of curriculum content and

² For additional information on this legislation, see CRS Report 89-7, Education for
Disadvantaged Children: Major Themes in the 1988 Reauthorization of Chapter 1, by
Wayne Riddle (out of print, available from author [7-7382] upon request).

pupil performance, and assessments linked to these standards. More specifically, the
Title I-A requirements have been focused on the percentage of pupils scoring at the
“proficient” or higher level of achievement on state assessments, not a common
national standard. However, when AYP provisions were first adopted in 1994, states
were given an extended period of time to adopt and implement these standards and
assessments, and for a lengthy period after the 1994 amendments, various
“transitional” performance standards and assessments were used to measure
academic achievement.³
Ultimate Goal: AYP standards may or may not incorporate an ultimate goal,
which may be relatively specific and demanding (e.g., all pupils should reach the
proficient or higher level of achievement, as defined by each state, in a specified
number of years), or more ambiguous and less demanding (e.g., pupil achievement
levels must increase in relation to either LEA or state averages or past performance).
If there is a specific ultimate goal, there may also be requirements for specific,
numerical, annual objectives either for pupils in the aggregate or for each of several
pupil groups. The primary purpose of such a goal is to require that levels of
achievement continuously increase over time in order to be considered satisfactory.
Subject Areas: With respect to subject areas, AYP standards might focus only
on reading and math achievement, or they might include additional subject areas.
Additional Indicators: In addition to pupil scores on assessments, AYP
standards often include one or more supplemental indicators, which may or may not
be academic. Examples include high school graduation rates, attendance rates, or
assessment scores in subjects other than those that are required.
Levels at Which Applied: States may be required to develop AYP standards
for, and apply them to, schools, LEAs, or for states overall. Further, it may be
required that AYP standards be applicable to all schools and LEAs, or only to those
participating in ESEA Title I-A.
Disaggregation of Pupil Groups: AYP standards might be applied simply to
all pupils in a school, LEA, or state, or they might also be applied separately and
specifically to a variety of demographic groups of pupils — such as economically
disadvantaged pupils, pupils with disabilities, pupils in different ethnic or racial
groups, or limited English proficient pupils. In a program such as Title I-A, the
purpose of which is to improve education for the disadvantaged, it may be especially
important to consider selected disadvantaged pupil groups separately, to identify
situations where overall pupil achievement may be satisfactory, but the performance
of one or more disadvantaged pupil groups is not.
Basic Structure: The basic structure of AYP Models generally falls into one
of three general categories. The three basic structural forms for AYP of schools or
LEAs are the group status, successive group improvement, and individual/cohort

³ For additional information on the standard and assessment requirements under ESEA title
I-A, see CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A
Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.

growth models. In the context of these terms, “group” (or “subgroup,” in the case of
detailed demographic categories) refers to a collection of pupils that is identified by
their grade level and usually other demographic characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity,
or educational disadvantage) as of a point in time. The actual pupils in a “group”
may change substantially, or even completely, from one year to the next. In contrast,
a “cohort” refers to a collection of pupils in which the same pupils are followed from
year to year.
The key characteristic of the group status model is a required threshold level of
achievement that is the same for all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs statewide in a
given subject and grade level. Under this model, performance at a point in time is
compared to a benchmark at that time, with no direct consideration of changes over
a previous period and whatever the school’s or LEA’s “starting point.” For example,
it might be required that 45% or more of the pupils in any of a state’s elementary
schools score at the proficient or higher level of achievement in order for a school to
make AYP. “Status” models emphasize the importance of meeting certain minimum
levels of achievement for all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs, and arguably apply
consistent expectations to all.
The key characteristic of the successive group improvement model is a focus on
the rate of change in achievement in a subject area from one year to the next among
groups of pupils in a grade level at a school or LEA (e.g., the percentage of this
year’s 5^th grade pupils in a school who are at a proficient or higher level in
mathematics compared to the percentage of last year’s 5^th grade pupils who were at
a proficient or higher level of achievement).
Finally, the key characteristic of the individual/cohort growth model is a focus
on the rate of change over time in the level of achievement among cohorts of the
same pupils. Growth models are longitudinal, based upon the tracking of the same
pupils as they progress through their K-12 education careers. While the progress of
pupils is tracked individually, results are typically aggregated when used for
accountability purposes. Aggregation may be by demographic group, by school or
LEA, or other relevant characteristics. In general, growth models would give credit
for meeting steps along the way to proficiency in ways that a status model typically
does not.
Alternative or “Safe Harbor” Provisions: AYP systems often have
alternative provisions under which schools or LEAs that fail to meet the usual
requirements may still be deemed to have made AYP if they meet certain specified
alternative conditions. For example, under a status model, it might be generally
required that 45% or more of the pupils in any of a state’s elementary schools score
at the proficient or higher level of achievement in order for the school to make AYP,
but a school where aggregate achievement is below this level might still be deemed
to have made AYP, through a “safe harbor” provision, if the percentage of pupils at
the proficient or higher level in the school is higher than for the previous year by
some specified degree. Such a concept may be seen as adding a successive group
improvement model element to a status model of AYP.

Assessment Participation Rate: It might be required that a specified minimum
percentage of a school’s or LEA’s pupils participate in assessments in order for the
school or LEA to be deemed to have met AYP standards. The primary purposes of
such a requirement are to assure that assessment results are broadly representative of
the achievement level of the school’s pupils, and to minimize the incentives for
school staff to discourage test participation by pupils deemed likely to perform poorly
on assessments.
Exclusion of Certain Pupils: Beyond general participation rate requirements
(see above), states may be specifically required to include, or allowed to exclude,
certain groups of pupils in determining whether schools or LEAs meet AYP
requirements. For example, statutory provisions might allow the exclusion of pupils
who have attended a school for less than one year in determining whether a school
meets AYP standards.
Special Provisions for Pupils with Particular Educational Needs: Beyond
requirements that all pupils be included in assessments, with accommodations where
appropriate, there may be special provisions for limited English proficient (LEP)
pupils or pupils with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Averaging or Other Statistical Manipulation of Data: Finally, there are a
variety of ways in which statistical manipulation of AYP-related data or calculations
might be either authorized or prohibited. Major possibilities include averaging of test
score data over periods of two or more years, rather than use of the latest data in all
cases; or the use of “confidence intervals” in calculating whether the aggregate
performance of a school’s pupils is at the level specified by the state’s AYP
standards. These techniques, and the implications of their use, are discussed further
below. In general, their use tends to improve the reliability and validity of AYP
determinations, while often reducing the number of schools or LEAs identified as
failing to meet AYP standards.
AYP Provisions Under the IASA of 1994
Under the IASA, states were to develop and implement AYP standards soon
after enactment. However, states were given several years (generally until the 2000-
2001 school year) to develop and implement curriculum content standards, pupil
performance standards, and assessments linked to these for at least three grade levels
in math and reading.⁴ Thus, during the period between adoption of the IASA in 1994
and of NCLB in early 2002, for most states the AYP provisions were based on
“transitional” assessments and pupil performance standards that were widely varying
in nature. AYP standards based on such “transitional” assessments were considered
to be “transitional” themselves, with “final” AYP standards to be based on states’
“final” assessments, when implemented. The subject areas required to be included
in state AYP standards (as opposed to required assessments) were not explicitly
specified in statute; ED policy guidance required states to include only math and

⁴ For more information on all aspects of the ESEA Title I-A assessment requirements, see
CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of the ESEA Title I-A
Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.

reading achievement in determining AYP. Further, the inclusion in AYP standards
of measures other than academic achievement in math and reading on state
assessments was optional.
With respect to the ultimate goal of the state AYP standards, the IASA provided
broadly that there must be continuous and substantial progress toward a goal of
having all pupils meet the proficient and advanced levels of achievement. However,
no timeline was specified for reaching this goal, and most states did not incorporate
it into their AYP plans in any concrete way.
The IASA’s AYP standards were to be applied to schools and LEAs, but not to
the states overall. Further, while states were encouraged to apply the AYP standards
to all public schools and LEAs, states could choose to apply them only to schools and
LEAs participating in Title I-A, and most did so limit their application.
The IASA provided that all relevant pupils⁵ were to be included in assessments
and AYP determinations, although assessments were to include results for pupils
who had attended a school for less than one year only in tabulating LEA-wide results
(i.e., not for individual schools). LEP pupils were to be assessed in the language that
would best reflect their knowledge of subjects other than English; and
accommodations were to be provided to pupils with disabilities.
Importantly, while the IASA required state assessments to ultimately (by 2000-
2001) provide test results that were disaggregated by pupil demographic groups, it
did not require such disaggregation of data in AYP standards and calculations. The

1994 statute provided that state AYP standards must consider all pupils,

“particularly” economically disadvantaged and LEP pupils, but did not specify that
the AYP definition must be based on each of these pupil groups separately. Finally,
the statute was silent with respect to data-averaging or other statistical techniques,
as well as the basic structure of state AYP standards (i.e., whether a “group status,”
“successive group improvement,” or “individual/cohort growth” model must be
employed).
Concerns About the AYP Provisions of the IASA. Thus, the IASA’s
provisions for state AYP standards broke new ground conceptually, but were
comparatively broad and ambiguous. Although states were required to adopt and
implement at least “transitional” AYP standards, on the basis of “transitional” state
assessment results, soon after enactment of the IASA, they were not required to adopt
“final” AYP standards, in conjunction with final assessments and pupil performance
standards, until the 2000-2001 school year. Further, states were not allowed to
implement most corrective actions, such as reconstituting school staff, until they
adopted final assessments, so these provisions were not implemented by most states
until the IASA was replaced by NCLB.

⁵ All pupils in states where AYP determinations were made for all public schools, or all
pupils served by ESEA Title I-A in states where AYP determinations were made only for
such schools and pupils.

A compilation was prepared by the Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE) of the “transitional” AYP standards that states were applying in
administering their Title I-A programs during the 1999-2000 school year.⁶ Overall,
according to this compilation, the state AYP definitions for 1999-2000 were widely
varied and frequently complex. General patterns in these AYP standards, outlined
below, reflect state interpretation of the IASA’s statutory requirements.
^!Most considered only achievement test scores, but some considered
a variety of additional factors, most often dropout rates or attendance
rates.
^!Often, the state AYP standards set a threshold of some minimum
percentage, or minimum rate of increase in the percentage, of pupils
at the proficient or higher level of achievement on a composite of
state tests. These thresholds were often based, at least in part, on
performance of pupils in a school or LEA relative to statewide
averages or to the school’s or the LEA’s performance in the previous
year. Several states identified schools as failing to make AYP if
they fail to meet “expected growth” in performance on the basis of
factors such as initial achievement levels and statewide average
achievement trends. These thresholds almost never incorporated a
“ladder” of movement toward a goal of all pupils at the proficient
level, or otherwise explicitly incorporated an ultimate goal to be met
by some specific date.
^!While some state AYP standards were based on achievement results
for a single year, they were frequently based on two- or three-year
rolling averages.
^!The AYP standards generally referred only to all pupils in a school
or LEA combined, without a specific focus on any pupil
demographic groups. However, the AYP standards of some states
included a focus on a single category of low-achieving pupils
separately from all pupils, and a very few (e.g., Texas) included a
specific focus on the performance of several pupil groups (African
American, Hispanic, White, or Economically Disadvantaged). One
state (New Mexico) compared school scores to predicted scores on
the basis of such factors as pupil demographics.
^!The state AYP standards under the IASA were sometimes
substantially adjusted from year-to-year (often with consequent wide
variations in the percentage of Title I-A schools identified as
needing improvement). According to CPRE, two states (Iowa and
New Hampshire) left AYP standards and determinations almost
totally to individual LEAs in 1999-2000.
A report published by ED in 2004, on the basis of state AYP policies for the
2001-2002 school year, contains similar conclusions about state AYP policies in the
period immediately preceding implementation of NCLB.⁷ There was tremendous

⁶ See [http://www.cpre.org/Publications/Publications_Accountability.htm].
⁷ U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary, Policy and Program Studies
(continued...)

variation among the states in the impact of their AYP policies under the IASA on the
number and percentage of Title I-A schools and LEAs that were identified as failing
to meet the AYP standards. In some states, a substantial majority of Title I-A schools
were identified as failing to make AYP, while in others almost no schools were so
identified. In July 2002, just before the initial implementation of the new AYP
provisions of NCLB, ED released a compilation of the number of schools identified
as failing to meet AYP standards for two or more consecutive years (and therefore
identified as being in need of improvement) in 2001-2002 (for most states) or 2000-
2001 (in states where 2001-2002 data were not available).⁸ The national total
number of these schools was 8,652; the number in individual states ranged from zero
in Arkansas and Wyoming to 1,513 in Michigan and 1,009 in California.⁹ While
there are obvious differences in the size of these states, there were also wide
variations in the percentage of all schools participating in Title I-A that failed to meet
AYP for either one year or two or more consecutive years.
AYP Under NCLB Statute
NCLB provisions regarding AYP may be seen as an evolution of, and to a
substantial degree as a reaction to perceived weaknesses in, the AYP requirements
of the 1994 IASA. The latter were frequently criticized as being insufficiently
specific, detailed, or challenging. Criticism often focused specifically on their failure
to focus on specific disadvantaged pupil groups, failure to require continuous
improvement toward an ultimate goal, and their required applicability only to schools
and LEAs participating in Title I-A, not to all public schools or to states overall.
Under NCLB, the Title I-A requirements for state-developed standards of AYP
were substantially expanded in scope and specificity. As under the IASA, AYP is
defined primarily on the basis of aggregate scores of pupils on state assessments of
academic achievement. However, under NCLB, state AYP standards must also
include at least one additional academic indicator, which in the case of high schools
must be the graduation rate. The additional indicators may not be employed in a way
that would reduce the number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP¹⁰

standards.
⁷ (...continued)
Service, Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts
(TASSIE): First-Year Findings, 2004. Hereafter referred to as the TASSIE First-Year
Report.
⁸ See the U.S. Department of Education, “Paige Releases Number of Schools in School
Improvement in Each State,” press release, July 1, 2002 at [http://www.ed.gov/
news/pressreleases/2002/07/07012002a.html ].
⁹ Another report published by ED in 2004 (the TASSIE First-Year Report — see footnote
7) stated that 8,078 public schools had been identified as failing to meet AYP standards for
two or more consecutive years in the 2001-2002 school year.
¹⁰ As is discussed later in this report and in more detail in a separate report (RL33032,
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act), a
(continued...)

One of the most important differences between AYP standards under NCLB and
previous requirements is that under NCLB, AYP calculations must be disaggregated;
that is, they must be determined separately and specifically for not only all pupils but
also for several demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state.
Test scores for an individual pupil may be taken into consideration multiple times,
depending on the number of designated groups of which they are a member (e.g., a
pupil might be considered as part of the LEP and economically disadvantaged
groups, as well as the “all pupils” group). The specified demographic groups are as
follows:
^!economically disadvantaged pupils,
^!LEP pupils,
^!pupils with disabilities, and
^!pupils in major racial and ethnic groups, as well as all pupils.
However, as is discussed further below, there are three major constraints on the
consideration of these pupil groups in AYP calculations. First, pupil groups need not
be considered in cases where their number is so relatively small that achievement
results would not be statistically significant or the identity of individual pupils might
be divulged.¹¹ As is discussed further below, the selection of the minimum number
(n) of pupils in a group for the group to be considered in AYP determinations has
been left largely to state discretion. State policies regarding “n” have varied widely,
with important implications for the number of pupil groups actually considered in
making AYP determinations for many schools and LEAs, and the number of schools
or LEAs potentially identified as failing to make AYP. Second, it has been left to the
states to define the “major racial and ethnic groups” on the basis of which AYP must
be calculated. And third, as under the IASA, pupils who have not attended the same
school for a full year need not be considered in determining AYP for the school,
although they are still to be included in LEA and state AYP determinations.
In contrast to the previous statute, under which AYP standards had to be applied
only to pupils, schools, and LEAs participating in Title I-A, AYP standards under
NCLB must be applied to all public schools, LEAs, and for the first time to states
overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However, corrective actions for
failing to meet AYP standards need only be applied to schools and LEAs
participating in Title I-A.
Another major break with the past is that state AYP standards must incorporate
concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a
proficient or advanced level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
The steps — that is, required levels of achievement — toward meeting this goal,
known as Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), must increase in “equal
increments” over time. The first increase in the thresholds must occur after no more

¹⁰ (...continued)
growth model pilot project has been initiated by ED.
¹¹ In addition, program regulations (Federal Register, December 2, 2002) do not require
graduation rates and other additional academic indicators to be disaggregated in determining
whether schools or LEAs meet AYP standards.

than two years, and remaining increases at least once every three years. As is
discussed further below, several states have accommodated this requirement in ways
that require much more rapid progress in the later years of the period leading up to

2013-2014 than in the earlier period.

The primary basic structure for AYP under NCLB is specified in the authorizing
statute as a group status model. A “uniform bar” approach is employed: states are
to set a threshold percentage of pupils at proficient or advanced levels each year that
is applicable to all pupil subgroups of sufficient size to be considered in AYP
determinations. The threshold levels of achievement are to be set separately for
reading and math, and may be set separately for each level of K-12 education
(elementary, middle, and high schools). The minimum¹² starting point for the
“uniform bar” in the initial period is to be the greater of (a) the percentage of pupils
at the proficient or advanced level of achievement for the lowest-achieving pupil
group in the base year,¹³ or (b) the percentage of pupils at the proficient or advanced
level of achievement for the lowest-performing quintile (fifth)¹⁴ of schools statewide
in the base year.¹⁵ The “uniform bar” must generally be increased at least once every
three years, although in the initial period it must be increased after no more than two
years.
In determining whether scores for a group of pupils are at the required level, the
averaging of scores over two to three years is allowed. In addition, NCLB includes
a safe harbor provision, under which a school that does not meet the standard AYP
requirements may still be deemed to meet AYP if it experiences a 10% (not a 10
percentage point) reduction in the gap between 100% and the base year for the
specific pupil groups that fail to meet the “uniform bar,” and those pupil groups make
progress on at least one other academic indicator included in the state’s AYP
standards. As noted earlier, this alternative provision adds successive group
improvement as a secondary AYP model under NCLB. In addition, as is discussed
below, under a pilot project, nine states have been approved to use a third model of
AYP — a “growth model” — for AYP determinations.
Finally, NCLB AYP provisions include an assessment participation rate
requirement. In order for a school to meet AYP standards, at least 95% of all pupils,
as well as at least 95% of each of the demographic groups of pupils considered for

¹² States may, of course, establish starting points above the required minimum level.
¹³ The “base year” is the 2001-2002 school year.
¹⁴ This is determined by ranking all public schools (of the relevant grade level) statewide
according to their percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher level of achievement (on
the basis of all pupils in each school), and setting the threshold at the point where one-fifth
of the schools (weighted by enrollment) have been counted, starting with the schools at the
lowest level of achievement.
¹⁵ Under program regulations [4 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(2)], the starting point may vary by grade
span (e.g., elementary, middle, etc.) and subject.

AYP determinations for the school or LEA, must participate in the assessments that
serve as the primary basis for AYP determinations.¹⁶
ED Regulations and Guidance on Implementation
of the AYP Provisions of NCLB
States began determining AYP for schools, LEAs, and the states overall on the
basis of NCLB provisions beginning with the 2002-2003 school year. The deadline
for states to submit to ED their AYP standards based on NCLB provisions was
January 31, 2003, and according to ED, all states met this deadline. On June 10,

2003, ED announced that accountability plans had been approved for all states.

However, many of the approved plans required states to take additional actions
following submission of their plan.¹⁷
In the period preceding ED’s review of state accountability plans under NCLB,
the Department published two relevant documents. Regulations, published in the
Federal Register on December 2, 2002, mirrored the detailed provisions in the
authorizing statute. The second document, a policy letter published by the Secretary
of Education on July 24, 2002,¹⁸ emphasized flexibility, stating that “The purpose of
the statute, for both assessments and accountability, is to build on high quality
accountability systems that States already have in place, not to require every state to
start from scratch.” The letter went on to list 10 criteria that it said would be applied
by ED in the process of reviewing state AYP standards. These criteria included
most, but not all, of the specifications regarding AYP from the authorizing statute
and regulations (e.g., applicability to all public schools and their pupils, and specific
focus on individual pupil groups). In response to concerns that large numbers of
schools might be identified as failing to make AYP (as is discussed further below),
ED officials emphasized the importance of taking action to identify and move to
improve underperforming schools, no matter how numerous. They also emphasized
the possibilities for flexibility and variation in taking corrective actions with respect
to schools that fail to meet AYP, depending on the extent to which they fail to meet
those standards.
Aspects of state AYP plans that apparently received special attention in ED’s
reviews included (1) the pace at which proficiency levels are expected to improve
(e.g., equal increments of improvement over the entire period, or much more rapid
improvement expected in later years than at the beginning); (2) whether schools or
LEAs must fail to meet AYP with respect to the same pupil group(s), grade level(s),
or subject areas to be identified as needing improvement, or whether two consecutive
years of failure to meet AYP with respect to any of these categories should lead to

¹⁶ If the number of pupils in a specified demographic group is too small to meet the
minimum group size requirements for consideration in AYP determinations, then the
participation rate requirement does not apply.
¹⁷ The plans have been posted online by ED at [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/
stateplans03/index.html ].
¹⁸ See [http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/07/07242002.html].

identification;¹⁹ (3) the length of time over which pupils should be identified as being
LEP; (4) the minimum size of pupil groups in a school in order for the group to be
considered in AYP determinations or for reporting of scores; (5) whether to allow
schools credit for raising pupil scores from below basic to basic (as well as from
basic or below to proficient or above) in making AYP determinations; and (6)
whether to allow use of statistical techniques such as “confidence intervals” (i.e.,
whether scores are below the required level to a statistically significant extent) in
AYP determinations.
Recent Developments
Regulations Proposed in April 2008 on Title I-A Assessments and
Accountability. Several new final regulations affecting the Title I-A assessment,
AYP, and accountability policies were published in the “Federal Register” on
October 29, 2008 (pages 64435-64513). Most of the proposed regulations deal with
policy areas other than AYP. Many of the regulations clarify previous regulations or
codify as regulations policies that have previously been established through less
formal mechanisms (such as policy guidance or peer reviewer guidance). The
proposed regulations related to AYP are briefly described below.
Group Size-Related Provisions in State AYP Policies. States must
provide a more extensive rationale than previously required for their selection of
minimum group sizes, use of confidence intervals, and related aspects of their AYP
policies. Although no specific limits are placed on these parameters, states must
explain in their Accountability Workbooks how their policies provide statistically
reliable information while minimizing the exclusion of designated pupil groups in
AYP determinations, especially at the school level. States must also report on the
number of pupils in designated groups that are excluded from separate consideration
in AYP determinations due to minimum group size policies. In addition, the
regulations codify provisions for the National Technical Advisory Council that was
established in August 2008 to advise the Secretary on a variety of technical aspects
of state standards, assessments, AYP, and accountability policies. Each state is
required to submit its Accountability Workbook, modified in accordance with the
proposed regulations, to ED for a new round of technical assistance and peer review.
Workbooks must be submitted in time to implement any needed changes before
making AYP determinations based on assessment results for the 2009-2010 school
year.
Assessments and Accountability Policies in General. The proposed
regulations clarify that assessments required under Title I-A may include multiple
formats as well as multiple academic assessments within each subject area (reading,
mathematics, and science). This does not include the concept of “multiple
measures,” as this term has been used by many to refer to proposals to expand NCLB

¹⁹ ED has approved state accountability plans under which schools or LEAs would be
identified as failing to meet AYP only if they failed to meet the required level of
performance in the same subject for two or more consecutive years, but has not approved
proposals under which a school would be identified only if it failed to meet AYP in the same
subject and pupil group for two or more consecutive years.

through inclusion of a variety of indicators other than standards-based assessments
in reading, mathematics, and science. Also, states are required to include results
from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
assessments on their state and LEA performance report cards. Further, ED policies
regarding provisions for states to request waivers allowing them to use growth
models of AYP are codified in the October 2008 regulations (previously they were
published only in policy guidance and peer reviewer guidance documents.)
Graduation Rates. Numerous changes have been made to previous policies
regarding graduation rates used as the “additional indicator” in AYP determinations
for high schools. Previously, states were allowed a substantial degree of flexibility
in their method for calculating graduation rates and were not required to disaggregate
the rates by pupil group (except for reporting purposes). Also, although states were
required to determine a level of, or rate of improvement in, graduation rates that
would be adequate for AYP purposes, they were not required to set an ultimate goal
toward which these rates should be progressing.
Under the October 2008 regulations, states must adopt a uniform method for
calculating graduation rates. This method must be used for school, LEA, and state
report cards showing results of assessments administered during the 2010-2011
school year, and for purposes of determining AYP based on assessments
administered during the 2011-2012 school year (states unable to meet these deadlines
may request an extension). This method has been endorsed by the National
Governors Association. The graduation rate is defined as the number of students²⁰
who graduate from high school in four years divided by the number of students in
the cohort for the students’ class, adjusted for student transfers among schools.
States may also propose using a supplementary extended-year graduation rate, in
addition to the four-year rate, in order to accommodate selected groups of students
(such as certain students with disabilities) who may need more than four years to
graduate. These graduation rates must be disaggregated by subgroup.
States must set an ultimate goal for graduation rates that they expect all high
schools to meet. No federal standard is established, but the state goal, as well as
annual targets toward meeting that goal, must be approved by ED as part of the
state’s accountability policy.
Growth Models. In November 2005, the Secretary of Education announced
a growth model pilot program under which initially up to 10 states would be allowed
to use growth models to make AYP determinations for the 2005-2006 or subsequent
school years.²¹ In December 2007, the Secretary lifted the cap on the number of
states that could participate in the growth model pilot, and regulations published in
October 2008²² incorporate this expanded policy. The models proposed by the states
must meet at least the following criteria (in addition to a variety of criteria applicable

²⁰ This includes students who graduate following a summer program after their fourth year.
²¹ See [http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html].
²² See the “Federal Register” for October 29, 2008 (pages 64435-64513).

to all state AYP policies — that is, measure achievement separately in
reading/language arts and mathematics):
^!they must incorporate an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a
proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-

2014 school year;

^!achievement gaps among pupil groups must decline in order for
schools or LEAs to meet AYP standards;
^!annual achievement goals for pupils must not be set on the basis of
pupil background or school characteristics;
^!annual achievement goals must be based on performance standards,
not past or “typical” performance growth rates;
^!the assessment system must produce comparable results from grade-
to-grade and year-to-year; and
^!the progress of individual students must be tracked within a state
data system.
In addition, applicant states must have their annual assessments for each of grades
3-8 approved by ED, and these assessments must have been in place for at least one
year previous to implementation of the growth models.
In January 2006, ED published peer review guidance for growth model pilot
applications.²³ In general, this guidance elaborates upon the requirements described
above, with special emphasis on the following: (a) pupil growth targets may not
consider their “race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, school AYP status, or any other
non-academic” factor; (b) growth targets are to be established on the basis of
achievement standards, not typical growth patterns or past achievement; and (c) the
state must have a longitudinal pupil data system, capable of tracking individual
pupils as they move among schools and LEAs within the state.
The requirements for growth models of AYP under this pilot are relatively
restrictive. The models must be consistent with the ultimate goal of all pupils at a
proficient or higher level by 2013-2014, a major goal of the statutory AYP provisions
of NCLB. More significantly, they must incorporate comparable annual assessments,
at least for each of grades 3-8 plus at least one senior high school year, and those
assessments must be approved by ED and in place for at least one year before
implementation of the growth model. Further, all performance expectations must be
individualized, and the state must have an infrastructure of a statewide, longitudinal
database for individual pupils. Proposed models would have to be structured around
expectations and performance of individual pupils, not demographic groups of pupils
in a school or LEA, although individual results would have to be aggregated for the
demographic groups designated in NCLB.
Two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, were initially approved to use
proposed growth models in making AYP determinations on the basis of assessments
administered in the 2005-2006 school year. Nine additional states — Arkansas,
Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, and Missouri — have

²³ See [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/growthmodelguidance.pdf].

been approved to participate in the pilot program subsequently, contingent in the case
of Missouri on adoption of a uniform minimum group size for all pupil groups. The
growth models for these states are briefly described below.
The North Carolina policy does not actually provide for a separate AYP model,
but rather the addition of a projection component to the current group status model.
If the achievement level of a non-proficient pupil is on a trajectory toward
proficiency within four years, then the pupil is added to the proficient group. All
other provisions of the current group status and successive group improvement
models would continue to apply. Thus, the ultimate goal becomes: by the end of the
2013-2014 school year, all pupils will be either at a proficient or higher level, or on
a four-year trajectory toward proficiency (without use of confidence intervals). The
trajectory calculations will be made for pupils in the 3^rd through 8^th grades. SEA staff
estimate that 4% of the schools in North Carolina that failed to meet AYP standards
on the basis of 2004-2005 assessment results would have met AYP standards if this
growth model had been in place.
Under the Tennessee policy, schools and LEAs will have two options for
meeting AYP: meeting either the AYP standards under the group status or
successive group improvement models of current law, or meeting AYP standards
according to a “projection model.” Under the projection model, pupils are deemed
to be at a proficient or higher level of achievement if their test scores are projected
to be at a proficient or higher level three years into the future, on the basis of past
achievement levels for individual pupils. It should be noted that under this model,
pupils who currently score at a proficient level, but who would be projected to score
below a proficient level in three years, would not be counted as proficient. Further,
the Tennessee growth/projection model implicitly assumes that pupils attend schools
performing at a state average level. If, in actuality, they attend low-performing
schools, their future achievement level may be overestimated.
Tennessee’s projection model will not be applied to high schools. SEA staff
estimate that 13% of the schools in Tennessee that failed to meet AYP standards
based on 2004-2005 assessment results would have met AYP standards if this model
had been in place.
Under the Delaware growth model, AYP will be calculated each year on the
basis of both the statutory provisions and using the state’s growth model. A school
will meet AYP standards if it qualifies using either method. Individual pupil
performance will be tracked from one year to the next. Specified numbers of points
(up to 300) will be awarded on the basis of changes (if any) in pupils’ performance
level. Points will be awarded for partial movement toward proficiency, but the points
awarded for movement to advanced levels beyond proficiency will be the same as for
movement to proficiency. (Maintaining a level of proficient or higher awards 300
points as well.) The average growth scores for schools and LEAs to meet AYP
standards increase steadily until 2013-2014, by which time all pupils would be
expected to achieve at a proficient or higher level.²⁴

²⁴ Delaware’s proposal included the use of confidence intervals at an unspecified level in
(continued...)

Under the Arkansas policy, AYP will be calculated each year on the basis of
both statutory provisions and using the state’s growth model. A school will meet
AYP standards if it qualifies using either method. Under the growth model, pupils
in grades 4-8 will be deemed to be proficient if they are on a growth path toward
proficiency by the end of 8^th grade. Pupils already proficient must be on a path to
continue to be proficient through grade 8 (i.e., growth path criteria will be applied to
all pupils, proficient and non-proficient). Individual annual proficiency thresholds
and growth increments are designed to enable non-proficient students to reach
proficiency by grade 8, and proficient students to continue to be proficient. Mobile
pupils will be associated with the school they attended at the time of assessment
administration in the previous year.
Under the Florida model, AYP will be determined separately for each pupil
subgroup in each school or LEA (i.e., not for schools or LEAs as a whole) using the
statutory models (status and safe harbor) plus a growth model. The school or LEA
will meet AYP standards if each pupil subgroup makes AYP using one of the three
models.
Florida’s growth model will be essentially the same as the current status model,
except that proficient pupils will include both those currently scoring at a proficient
or higher level plus those who are on an individual path toward proficiency within
three years. The combined percentage of pupils rated proficient will be compared to
the standard AMO. The model will be applied to AYP determinations for grades 3-
10 (with some modifications for pupils in grade 3). In its application, the Florida
SEA estimated that for 2006-2007, 938 of the state’s public schools would meet AYP
standards with the growth model applied, compared to 743 schools without (out of
a total of 3,200 schools).
Under the Iowa model, pupil tests score ranges below proficient have been
divided into 3 categories: Hi Marginal, Lo Marginal, and Weak. A student who rises
from one of these levels to a higher level, and has not previously attained the higher
level, will be deemed to have met “Adequate Yearly Growth” (AYG). AYG is
considered to be more than a typical year’s growth over a one-year period. For
schools and LEAs that have not met AYP though application of the standard status
and safe harbor models, students making AYG will be added to those scoring
proficient or above, and this combined total will be used in determining whether the
school or LEA makes AYP for the year. Students scoring below the proficient level
must continue to move to a higher sub-proficient level each year in order to be
included in the combined proficient + AYG student count. This implies that students
beginning at the Weak level must reach proficiency within three years, those
beginning at Lo Marginal must become proficient within two years, and those
beginning at Hi Marginal must reach proficiency within one year. By 2014, the
growth model would no longer be used, and all pupils will be expected to achieve at
a proficient or higher level.

²⁴ (...continued)
implementing the growth model; however, ED approved use of the model without
confidence intervals.

Confidence intervals will continue to be applied to determine whether the
combined proficient + AYG student count meets the required threshold to make
AYP. This growth model will be applied statewide to test scores for grades 3-8 and
11, and to grades 9 and 10 as well in the LEAs that administer the Iowa Tests in those
grades. The Iowa growth model does not currently include students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, who take the Iowa Alternate Assessment.
Ohio has adopted a variation of the “projection” or “on track to proficiency”
approach that is common to the models for all of the other participating states except
Delaware and Iowa. After application of the standard status and safe harbor models,
if any pupil group fails to meet AYP, then a determination will be made if a sufficient
proportion of pupils in the group is on track toward meeting the required proficiency
threshold as of a “target grade.” In the case of elementary and middle schools, the
target grade will be either the grade level following the highest grade offered by the
school (i.e., for a K-5 school, the 6^th grade), or 4 grades beyond the pupil’s current
grade, whichever comes first. In the case of a high school, pupils would have to be
on track toward proficiency by the 11^th grade.
Pupils currently scoring at a proficient level but who are projected to be below
the proficient level by the target grade will not be considered to be proficient in
Ohio’s projection model. Student achievement trajectories will be projected on an
individual basis. Projections will be based on past test results (in all subjects, but
with greater weight applied to past test results in the same subject) for each pupil.
Under Alaska’s growth model, pupils will be included in the proficient group
if their achievement level trajectory is on a growth path toward proficiency within 3
additional years for pupils in grades 4-9, or within 2 additional years for pupils in
grade 10. (Alaska currently has no standards-based assessments for grades beyond
10.) Pupils in the third grade (the earliest grade at which state assessments are
administered) will be measured on the basis of status only, not growth. The growth
model will not apply to pupils with disabilities who take alternate assessments.
While Alaska had proposed that confidence intervals be applied, at a relatively low
level (68%), under the growth model, the state agreed to drop this in the approved
version. In its application, Alaska estimated that approximately 13% of pupils
currently not proficient are on track toward proficiency, under the terms of the state’s
growth model.
In Arizona, the growth model will be applicable to pupils in grades 4-8 only.
Pupils will be included in the proficient group if their achievement level trajectory
is on a growth path toward proficiency within three years or by 8^th grade, whichever
comes first. Pupils in the third grade (the earliest grade at which state assessments
are administered) will be measured on the basis of status only, not growth. Unlike
some other states participating in the growth model pilot, pupils with disabilities who
take the state’s alternate assessment (AIMS-A) will be included in the Arizona
growth model. Such pupils with disabilities who move up one performance level
(i.e., from “falls far below” to “approaches” or from “approaches” to “meets” the
proficiency standard) will be deemed to have met their growth target.
In Missouri, schools and LEAs will first be evaluated under the status model of
AYP. If the school or LEA does not make AYP under that model, the growth model

will be applied. If the school or LEA still does not make AYP after application of
the growth model, then a Safe Harbor calculation will be applied. If the school or
LEA does not meet any of these 3 criteria, then it fails to make AYP.
In the growth calculation, it will be determined whether students currently
scoring below a proficient level are on track to be proficient within either four years
or by 8^th grade, whichever occurs first. If so, they will be added to the number of
students currently scoring at a proficient or higher level. Students in grades 3 and 8
will be evaluated on the basis of the status model and Safe Harbor only (grade 3
scores will be used as the baseline for growth trajectory calculations). No confidence
intervals will be applied to growth model calculations. Only the current status and
Safe Harbor models will used for AYP determinations for grades 9-12. Students with
disabilities, including those taking the state’s alternate assessment for students with
the most severe cognitive disabilities, will be included in the growth model, applying
trajectories and achievement levels associated with either the regular or alternate
assessments.
In Michigan, the approved growth model provides a third option for deeming
student achievement to be proficient for purposes of AYP determinations. Currently,
Michigan students are deemed to be proficient if their achievement test scores are at
a proficient or advanced level, or if the scores of individual students are within 2
standard errors of measurement (in effect, a 95% confidence interval) of the test score
cut point for proficiency.²⁵ The latter students are considered to be “provisionally
proficient” and are treated the same as students scoring proficient or above in AYP
determinations. The growth model adds a third category of students “on trajectory”
toward proficiency.
To determine whether students are on trajectory toward proficiency, each of the
four proficiency levels (not proficient/below basic, partially proficient/basic,
proficient, and advanced) is divided into 3 sub-levels (low, middle, high). Similar,
but slightly different, procedures are applied to Michigan’s alternate assessment for
students with mild cognitive impairment. The growth model does not cover high
school students or students with disabilities taking alternate assessments who have
moderate or severe cognitive impairment. If a student’s performance improves over
the previous year by a number of sub-levels such that, if the improvement continued
at the same rate in the future, they would reach proficiency within three years, they
are counted as being on trajectory toward proficiency. Confidence intervals will not
be applied to the growth model determinations.
Thus, the number of students deemed proficient will be the total of students
scoring proficient or above, plus students on trajectory to proficiency, plus students
provisionally proficient. If this number of students divided by total students tested
meets or exceeds the Annual Measurable Objective, then AYP is met with respect to
the subject and student group in question. Since many students may meet both the
trajectory toward proficiency and the provisionally proficient criteria, it will first be

²⁵ Most states use confidence intervals in their AYP determinations. However, in most
cases, the confidence intervals are applied to group average percentages of students scoring
proficient or above, not to individual student scores.

determined whether students are on trajectory, then whether any remaining non-
proficient students meet the provisionally proficient criterion. It is estimated that use
of the growth model will add only minimally (0.7-1.3%) to the number of students
already deemed to be proficient or provisionally proficient.
Overall, most of the growth models approved by ED thus far are based upon
supplementing the number of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level with those
who are projected to be at a proficient level within a limited number of years. Nine
of the eleven approved models follow this general approach. Among these states, a
distinction may be made between seven states (North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida,
Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, and Michigan) that combine currently proficient pupils
with those not proficient who are “on track” toward proficiency, and two states
(Tennessee and Ohio) that consider only projected proficiency levels for all pupils
(i.e., currently proficient pupils who are not on track to remain proficient are counted
as not proficient). In contrast, the models used by two other states — Delaware and
Iowa — focus on awarding credit for movement of pupils among achievement
categories up to proficiency.
Pupils with Disabilities. The most substantial of ED’s recent AYP policy
changes involves pupils with disabilities. First, regulations addressing the
application of the Title I-A standards and assessment requirements to certain pupils
with disabilities were published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2003 (pp.
68698-68708). The purpose of these regulations is to clarify the application of
standard, assessment, and accountability provisions to pupils “with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.” Under the regulations, states and LEAs may adopt
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards — aligned with the
state’s academic content standards and reflecting “professional judgment of the
highest achievement standards possible” — for a limited percentage of pupils with²⁶
disabilities. The number of pupils whose proficient or higher scores on these
alternate assessments may be considered as proficient or above for AYP purposes is
limited to a maximum of 1.0% of all tested pupils (approximately 9% of all pupils
with disabilities) at the state and LEA level (there is no limit for individual schools).
SEAs may request from the U.S. Secretary of Education an exception allowing them
to exceed the 1.0% cap statewide, and SEAs may grant such exceptions to LEAs
within their state. According to ED staff, three states in 2003-2004 (Montana, Ohio,
and Virginia), and four states in 2004-2005 (the preceding three states plus South
Dakota), received waivers to go marginally above the 1.0% limit statewide. In the
absence of a waiver, the number of pupils scoring at the “proficient or higher” level
on alternate assessments, based on alternate achievement standards, in excess of the
1.0% limit is to be added to those scoring “below proficient” in LEA or state-level
AYP determinations.
A new ED policy affecting an additional group of pupils with disabilities was
announced initially in April 2005, with final regulations based on it published in the
Federal Register on April 9, 2007. The new policy is divided into short-term and

²⁶ This limitation does not apply to the administration of alternate assessments based on the
same standards applicable to all students, for other pupils with (non-cognitive or less severe
cognitive) disabilities.

long-term phases. It is focused on pupils with disabilities whose ability to perform
academically is assumed to be greater than that of the pupils with “the most
significant cognitive disabilities” discussed in the above paragraph, and who are
capable of achieving high standards, but may not reach grade level within the same
time period as their peers. In ED’s terminology, these pupils would be assessed using
alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards.
The short-term policy may apply, with the approval of the Secretary, to states
until they develop and administer alternative assessments under the long-term policy
(described below).²⁷ Under this short-term policy, in eligible states that have not yet
adopted modified achievement standards, schools may add to their proficient pupil
group a number of pupils with disabilities equal to 2.0% of all pupils assessed (in
effect, deeming the scores of all of these pupils to be at the proficient level).²⁸ This
policy would be applicable only to schools and LEAs that would otherwise fail meet
AYP standards due solely to their pupils with disabilities group. According to ED
staff, as of the date of this report, 28 states are currently exercising this flexibility.
Alternatively, in eligible states that have adopted modified achievement standards
(currently six states), schools and LEAs may count proficient scores for pupils with
disabilities on these assessments, subject to a 2.0% (of all assessed pupils) cap at the
LEA and state levels.
The long-term policy is embodied in final regulations published in the Federal
Register on April 9, 2007. These regulations affect standards, assessments, and AYP
for a group of pupils with disabilities who are unlikely to achieve grade level
proficiency within the current school year, but who are not among those pupils with
the most significant cognitive disabilities (whose situation was addressed by an
earlier set of regulations, discussed above). For this second group of pupils with
disabilities, states would be authorized to develop “modified academic achievement
standards” and alternate assessments linked to these. The modified achievement
standards must be aligned with grade-level content standards, but may reflect reduced
breadth or depth of grade-level content in comparison to the achievement standards
applicable to the majority of pupils. The standards must provide access to grade-
level curriculum, and not preclude affected pupils from earning a regular high school
diploma.
As with the previous regulations regarding pupils with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, there would be no direct limit on the number of pupils who
take alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. However, in
AYP determinations, pupil scores of proficient or advanced on alternate assessments
based on modified achievement standards may be counted only as long as they do not
exceed a number equal to 2.0% of all pupils tested at the state or LEA level (i.e., an

²⁷ Under current regulations, the short-term policy cannot be extended beyond the 2008-2009
school year.
²⁸ This would be calculated on the basis of statewide demographic data, with the resulting
percentage applied to each affected school and LEA in the state. In making the AYP
determination using the adjusted data, no further use may be made of confidence intervals
or other statistical techniques. (The actual, not just the adjusted, percentage of pupils who
are proficient must also be reported to parents and the public.)

estimated 20% of pupils with disabilities); such scores in excess of the limit would
be considered “non-proficient.” As with the 1.0% cap for pupils with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, this 2.0% cap does not apply to individual schools.
In general, LEAs or states could exceed the 2.0% cap only if they did not reach the

1.0% limit with respect to pupils with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Thus, in general, scores of proficient or above on alternate assessments based on
alternate and modified achievement standards may not exceed a total of 3.0% of all
pupils tested at a state or LEA level.²⁹ In particular, states are no longer allowed to
request a waiver of the 1.0% cap regarding pupils with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
The April 9, 2007, proposed regulations also include provisions that are widely
applicable to AYP determinations. First, states are no longer allowed to use varying
minimum group sizes (“n”) for different demographic groups of pupils. This
prohibits the previously common practice of setting higher “n” sizes for pupils with
disabilities or LEP pupils than for other pupil groups. Second, when pupils take state
assessments multiple times, states and LEAs may use the highest score for pupils
who take tests more than once. Finally, as with LEP pupils, states and LEAs may
include the test scores of former pupils with disabilities in the disability subgroup for
up to two years after such pupils have exited special education.³⁰
In summary, there are now five groups of pupils with disabilities with respect
to achievement standards, assessments, and the use of scores in AYP determinations.
These groups are summarized below in Table 1.

²⁹ The 3.0% limit might be exceeded for LEAs, but only if — and to the extent that — the
SEA waives the 1.0% cap applicable to scores on alternate assessments based on alternate
achievement standards.
³⁰ In such cases, the former pupils with disabilities would not have to be counted in
determining whether the minimum group size was met for the disability subgroup.

Table 1. Categories of Pupils with Disabilities
with Respect to Achievement Standards, Assessments,
and AYP Determinations Under ESEA Title I-A
Cap on # of
Proficient or
Advanced Scores
Type ofThat May Be
Type of ContentAchievementType ofIncluded in AYP
St andards St andards Assessment Determinations
Grade-levelGrade-levelRegular (i.e., theNone
content standardsacademicsame as that
achievementapplicable to pupils
standards generally)
Grade-levelGrade-levelRegular withNone
content standardsacademicaccommodations
achievement(e.g., special
standardsassistance for those
with sight or
hearing disabilities)
Gr ade-level Gr ade-level Alternate None
content standardsacademicassessments based
achievementon regular, grade-
standardslevel achievement
standards (e.g.,
portfolios or
performance
assessments)
Grade-levelModified academicAlternateIn general, 2.0% of
content standardsachievementassessments basedall pupils assessed
standardson modified
academic
achievement
standards
Alternate contentAlternate academicAlternateIn general, 1.0% of
standardsachievementassessments basedall pupils assessed

standardson alternate
achievement
standards

Participation Rates. On March 29, 2004, ED announced that schools could
meet the requirement that 95% or more of pupils (all pupils as well as pupils in each
designated demographic group) participate in assessments (in order for the school or
LEA to make AYP) on the basis of average participation rates for the last two or
three years, rather than having to post a 95% or higher participation rate each year.
In other words, if a particular demographic group of pupils in a public school has a
93% test participation rate in the most recent year, but had a 97% rate the preceding
year, the 95% participation rate requirement would be met. In addition, the new
guidance would allow schools to exclude pupils who fail to participate in
assessments due to a “significant medical emergency” from the participation rate
calculations. The new guidance further emphasizes the authority for states to allow
pupils who miss a primary assessment date to take make-up tests, and to establish a
minimum size for demographic groups of pupils to be considered in making AYP
determinations (including those related to participation rates). According to ED, in
some states, as many as 20% of the schools failing to make AYP did so on the basis
of assessment participation rates alone. It is not known how many of these schools
would meet the new, somewhat more relaxed standard.
LEP Pupils. In a letter dated February 19, and proposed regulations published
on June 24, 2004, ED officials announced two new policies with respect to LEP³¹
pupils. First, with respect to assessments, LEP pupils who have attended schools
in the United States (other than Puerto Rico) for less than 10 months must participate
in English language proficiency and mathematics tests. However, the participation
of such pupils in reading tests (in English), as well as the inclusion of any of these
pupils’ test scores in AYP calculations, is to be optional (i.e., schools and LEAs need
not consider the scores of first year LEP pupils in determining whether schools or
LEAs meet AYP standards). Such pupils are still considered in determining whether
the 95% test participation has been met.
Second, in AYP determinations, schools and LEAs may continue to include
pupils in the LEP demographic category for up to two years after they have attained
proficiency in English. However, these formerly LEP pupils need not be included
when determining whether a school or LEA’s count of LEP pupils meets the state’s
minimum size threshold for inclusion of the group in AYP calculations, and scores
of formerly LEP pupils may not be included in state, LEA, or school report cards.
Both these options, if exercised, should increase average test scores for pupils
categorized as being part of the LEP group, and reduce the extent to which schools
or LEAs fail to meet AYP on the basis of LEP pupil groups.
AYP Determinations for Targeted Assistance Schools. ED has
released a February 4, 2004, letter to a state superintendent of education providing
more flexibility in AYP determinations for targeted assistance schools.³² Title I-A
services are provided at the school level via one of two basic models: targeted
assistance schools, where services are focused on individual pupils with the lowest
levels of academic achievement, or schoolwide programs, in which Title I-A funds

³¹ See Federal Register, June 24, 2004, pp. 35462-35465; and [http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
accountability/schools/factsheet-english.html ].
³² See [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/stateletters/asaypnc.html].

may be used to improve academic instruction for all pupils. Currently, most Title I-A
programs are in targeted assistance schools, although the number of schoolwide
programs has grown rapidly in recent years, and most pupils served by Title I-A are
in schoolwide programs.
This policy letter gives schools and LEAs the option of considering only pupils
assisted by Title I-A for purposes of making AYP determinations for individual
schools. LEA and state level AYP determinations would still have to be made on the
basis of all public school pupils. The impact of this authority, if utilized, is unclear.
In schools using this authority, there would be an increased likelihood that pupil
demographic groups would be below minimum size to be considered. At the same
time, if Title I-A participants are indeed the lowest-performing pupils in targeted
assistance schools, it seems unlikely that many schools would choose to base AYP
determinations only on those pupils, especially given the current structure of the
primary AYP requirements under NCLB (i.e., a status model, not a growth model).
Flexibility for Areas Affected by the Gulf Coast Hurricanes.
Following the damage to school systems and dispersion of pupils in the wake of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September 2005, interest has been
expressed by officials of states and LEAs that were damaged by the storms, or that
enrolled pupils displaced by these storms, in the possibility of waiving some of
NCLB’s assessment, AYP, or other accountability requirements. In a series of policy
letters to chief state school officers (CSSOs), the Secretary of Education has
emphasized forms of flexibility already available under current law and announced
a number of policy revisions and potential waivers that might be granted in the
future.
In a September 29, 2005, letter to all CSSOs,³³ the Secretary of Education noted
that they could exercise existing natural disaster provisions of NCLB
[§1116(b)(7)(D) and (c)(10)(F)] to postpone the implementation of school or LEA
improvement designations and corrective actions for schools or LEAs failing to meet
AYP standards that are located in the major disaster areas in Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Texas, or Florida, without a specific waiver being required. In addition,
waivers of these requirements will be considered for other LEAs or schools heavily
affected by enrolling large numbers of evacuee pupils. Further, all affected LEAs
and schools could establish a separate subgroup for displaced students in AYP
determinations on the basis of assessments administered during the 2005-2006 school
year. Pupils would appear only in the evacuee subgroup, not other demographic
subgroups (e.g., economically disadvantaged or LEP). Waivers could be requested
in 2006 to allow schools or LEAs to meet AYP requirements if only the test scores
of the evacuee subgroup would prevent them from making AYP. In any case, all
such students must still be assessed and the assessment results reported to the
public.³⁴

³³ See [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/050929.html].
³⁴ For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33236, Education-Related
Hurricane Relief: Legislative Act, by Rebecca Skinner, et al.

State Revisions of Their Accountability Plans. Over the period
following the initial submission and approval of state accountability plans for AYP
and related policies in 2003 through the present, many states have proposed a number
of revisions to their plans. Sometimes these revisions seem clearly intended to take
advantage of new forms of flexibility announced by ED officials, such as those
discussed above, while in other cases states appear to be attempting to take advantage
of options or forms of flexibility that reportedly been approved for other states
previously.
The proposed changes in state accountability plans have apparently almost
always been in the direction of increased flexibility for states and LEAs, with
reductions anticipated in the number or percentage of schools or LEAs identified as
failing to make AYP. Issues that have arisen with respect to these changes include
a lack of transparency, and possibly inconsistencies (especially over time), in the
types of changes that ED officials have approved; debates over whether the net effect
of the changes is to make the accountability requirements more reasonable or to
undesirably weaken them; concern that the changes may make an already
complicated accountability system even more complex; and timing — whether
decisions on proposed changes are being made in a timely manner by ED.
The major aspects of state accountability plans for which changes have been
proposed and approved include the following: (a) changes to take advantage of
revised federal regulations and policy guidance regarding assessment of pupils with
the most significant cognitive disabilities, LEP pupils, and test participation rates; (b)
limiting identification for improvement to schools that fail to meet AYP in the same
subject area for two or more consecutive years, and limiting identification of LEAs
for improvement to those that failed to meet AYP in the same subject area and across
all three grade spans for two or more consecutive years; (c) using alternative methods
to determine AYP for schools with very low enrollment; (d) initiating or expanding
use of confidence intervals in AYP determinations, including “safe harbor”
calculations; (e) changing (usually effectively increasing) minimum group size; and
(f) changing graduation rate targets for high schools. Accountability plan changes
that have frequently been requested but not approved by ED include (a) identification
of schools for improvement only if they failed to meet AYP with respect to the same
pupil group and subject area for two or more consecutive years, and (b) retroactive
application of new forms of flexibility to recalculation of AYP for previous years.³⁵

³⁵ See Center on Education Policy, Rule Changes Could Help More Schools Meet Test Score
Targets for the No Child Left Behind Act, October 22, 2004, available at [http://www.
cep-dc.org/nclb/StateAccountabilityPlanAmendmentsReportOct2004.pdf]; Title I Monitor,
Changes in Accountability Plans Dilute Standards, Critics Say, November 2004; Council
of Chief State School Officers, Revisiting Statewide Educational Accountability Under
NCLB, September 2004, available at [http://www.ccsso.org]; and “Requests Win More
Leeway Under NCLB,” Education Week, July 13, 2005, p. 1.

Data on Schools and LEAs
Identified as Failing to Meet AYP
A substantial amount of data has become available on the number of schools
and LEAs that have failed to meet the AYP standards of the NCLB on the basis of
assessments administered during the 2002-2003 through 2005-2006 school years, and
several states are currently releasing preliminary data based on 2006-2007 school
year assessment results. A basic problem with these data is that they frequently have
been incomplete and subject to change. Currently available compilations of state
AYP data are discussed below in two categories: reports focusing on the number and
percentage of schools failing to meet AYP standards for one or more years versus
reports on the number and percentage of public schools and LEAs identified for
improvement — that is, they had failed to meet AYP standards for at least two
consecutive years.
Schools Failing to Meet AYP Standards
for One or More Years
Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, data on the number of schools in
each state that made or did not make AYP have been reported by the states to ED, in
a series of Consolidated State Performance Reports. Until recently, these Reports
were not disseminated by ED; however, the Consolidated State Performance Reports³⁶
for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years have been made available by ED.
According to these Consolidated State Performance Reports,³⁷ for the nation
overall, 28% of all public schools failed to make adequate yearly progress on the
basis of assessment scores for the 2006-2007 school year. The percentage of public
schools failing to make adequate yearly progress for 2006-2007 varied widely among
the states, from 4% for Wisconsin and 6% for Wyoming to 75% for the District of
Columbia and 66% for Florida. Table 2 provides the percentage of schools failing
to make adequately yearly progress, on the basis of 2006-2007 assessment results, for
each state.
According to the “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” published by
ED in October 2007, of schools failing to make AYP in the 2004-2005 school year,
43% did so with respect to achievement in reading or math (or both) for the “all
pupils” group. In contrast, 40% of schools failing to make AYP did so on the basis
of achievement in reading or math (or both) for one or more subgroups while making
AYP with respect to achievement of the “all pupils” group. The remaining 17% of
schools failing to make AYP that year did so with respect to test participation rates
only (3%), “other academic indicator” only (4%), or other combinations of AYP
criteria (10%). Among schools with numbers of pupils in each of the designated
categories to meet the minimum group size criterion for their state, the percentage of
schools failing to make AYP with respect to math or reading achievement in 2004-

³⁶ See [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html].
³⁷ For one state, Maine, these data were not available in the Consolidated State Performance
Report, and were obtained directly from the state educational agency.

2005 was found to vary from 3% for the Asian or White pupil groups, 18% for
Hispanic pupils, 23% for pupils from low-income families, 24% for LEP pupils, 26%
for African-American pupils, and 38% for pupils with disabilities.
Schools Failing to Meet AYP Standards
for Two Consecutive Years or More
ED, in its “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” published in October
2007, reported that 11,648 public schools, including 9,808 Title I-A schools, were
identified for improvement during the 2005-2006 school year, based on assessment
results through the 2004-2005 school year. These constituted 12% of all public
schools or 18% of all Title I-A schools. Schools most likely to be identified were
those in large, urban LEAs, schools with high pupil poverty rates, and schools with
large minority enrollment. The percentage of both all and of Title I-A schools
identified varied widely among the states, from less than 1% (of all)/1% (of Title I-A)
schools in Nebraska to more than 40% of all schools in Hawaii, New Mexico, and
Puerto Rico, or more than 50% of all Title I-A schools in Florida, New Mexico, and
Puerto Rico.
LEAs Failing to Meet AYP Standards
Although most attention, in both the statute and implementation activities, thus
far has focused on application of the AYP concept to schools, a limited amount of
information is becoming available about LEAs that fail to meet AYP requirements,
and the consequences for them. According to the Consolidated State Performance
Reports referred to above, approximately 30% of all LEAs failed to meet AYP
standards on the basis of assessment results for the 2006-2007 school year (see Table

2). Among the states, there was even greater variation for LEAs than for schools.

Three states — Alabama, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — reported that 1% or less of
their LEAs failed to make adequate yearly progress, while 97% of the LEAs in North
Carolina and 91% of those in West Virginia failed to meet AYP standards.
In its “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” ED has reported that 1,578
LEAs, representing approximately 10% of all LEAs, were identified for improvement
for the 2005-2006 school year. A large number of states have recently adopted
policies under which LEAs would be identified as needing improvement only if they
failed to make AYP in the same subject (reading or mathematics) in each of three
grade levels (elementary, middle, and high) for two or more consecutive school years.
According to a recent study of NCLB implementation in six states by the Harvard
Civil Rights Project, this has substantially increased the proportion of LEAs
identified for improvement that serve central city areas and racially diverse or high-³⁸

poverty pupil populations.
³⁸ Harvard Civil Rights Project, “Changing NCLB Accountability Standards: Implications
for Racial Equity,” June 2005, available at [http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu].

Table 2. Reported Percentage of Public Schools and
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Failing to Make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the Basis of
Spring 2007 Assessment Results
Reported PercentageReported Percentage of
Stateof Rated Schools NotLEAs Not Making AYP,
Making AYP, 20072007
Alabama161
Alaska3454
Arizona2842
Arkansas3818
California3347
Colorado2743
Connecticut3219
Delaware3032
District of Columbia7584
Florida 66 na^a
Georgia1861
Ha wa i i 35 na^a
Idaho7373
Illinois2428
Indiana4821
Iowa72
Kansas1212
Kentucky2247
Louisiana 12 na^a
Maine305
Maryland2371
Massachusetts4870
Michigan183
Minnesota3847
Mississippi2169
Missouri4663
Montana1015
Nebraska1221
Nevada336
New Hampshire4231
New Jersey267
New Mexico5574
New York2027
North Carolina5597
North Dakota914
Ohio3870
Oklahoma1214
Oregon2252
Pennsylvania239
Rhode Island2133
South Carolina63na^a
South Dakota183
T e nnessee 13 10

Reported PercentageReported Percentage of
Stateof Rated Schools NotLEAs Not Making AYP,
Making AYP, 20072007
Texas911
Utah2317
Vermont 1217
Virginia2655
Washington3550
West Virginia1991
Wisconsin^b 40
Wyoming 610
Puerto Rico47na^a
National Average2830^a
^Source:^S^t^a^t^e^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^P^e^r^f^o^r^maⁿ^c^e^R^e^p^o^r^t^s^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^e^d^.^g^o^v^/^a^d^mⁱⁿ^s^/^l^e^a^d^/^accouⁿ^t^/
^coⁿ^s^o^lid^ated^/sy⁰⁶^-⁰⁷^/in^d^e^x^.^h^t^m^l^]^.
^{a. NA}^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^{e. T}^h^u^s^{, th}^{e n}^a^tioⁿ^a^{l to}^{tal p}^e^r^cen^tag^e^f^o^r^L^E^A^s^ex^clu^d^{es th}^ese.
^{b. Wi}^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^report^s^{2 L}^E^A^s^as^f^aⁱ^lⁱⁿ^g^t^o^m^a^k^e^A^Y^{P ou}^t^of^{a t}^o^t^a^l^of^{425 L}^E^A^s^.
Issues in State Implementation
of NCLB Provisions
Introduction
The primary challenge associated with the AYP concept is to develop and
implement school, LEA, and state performance measures that are: (a) challenging,
(b) provide meaningful incentives to work toward continuous improvement, (c) are
at least minimally consistent across LEAs and states, and (d) focus attention
especially on disadvantaged pupil groups. At the same time, it is generally deemed
desirable that AYP standards should allow flexibility to accommodate myriad
variations in state and local conditions, demographics, and policies, and avoid the
identification of so many schools and LEAs as failing to meet the standards that
morale declines significantly systemwide and it becomes extremely difficult to target
technical assistance and corrective actions on low-performing schools. The AYP
provisions of NCLB are challenging and complex, and have generated substantial
criticism from several states, LEAs, and interest groups. Many critics are especially
concerned that efforts to direct resources and apply corrective actions to low-
performing schools would likely be ineffective if resources and attention are
dispersed among a relatively large proportion of public schools. Others defend
NCLB’s requirements as being a measured response to the weaknesses of the pre-
NCLB AYP provisions, which were much more flexible but, as discussed above, had
several weaknesses.
The remainder of this report provides a discussion and analysis of several
specific aspects of NCLB’s AYP provisions that have attracted significant attention
and debate. These include the provision for an ultimate goal, use of confidence
intervals and data-averaging, population diversity effects, minimum pupil group size
(n), separate focus on specific pupil groups, number of schools identified and state

variations therein, the 95% participation rule, state variations in assessments and
proficiency standards, and timing.
It should be noted that this report focuses on issues that have arisen in the
implementation of NCLB provisions on AYP. As such, it generally does not focus
on alternatives to the current statutory provisions of NCLB.
Ultimate Goal
The required incorporation of an ultimate goal — of all pupils at a proficient or
higher level of achievement within 12 years of enactment — is one of the most
significant differences between the AYP provisions of NCLB and those under
previous legislation. Setting such a date is perhaps the primary mechanism requiring
state AYP standards to incorporate annual increases in expected achievement levels,
as opposed to the relatively static expectations embodied in most state AYP standards
under the previous IASA. Without an ultimate goal of having all pupils reach the
proficient level of achievement by a specific date, states might simply establish
relative goals (e.g., performance must be as high as the state average) that provide no
real movement toward, or incentives for, significant improvement, especially among
disadvantaged pupil groups.
Nevertheless, a goal of having all pupils at a proficient or higher level of
achievement, within 12 years or any other specified period of time, may be easily
criticized as being “unrealistic,” if one assumes that “proficiency” has been
established at a challenging level. Proponents of such a demanding ultimate goal
argue that schools and LEAs frequently meet the goals established for them, even
rather challenging goals, if the goals are very clearly identified, defined, and
established, if they are attainable, and if it is made visibly clear that they will be
expected to meet them. This is in contrast to a pre-NCLB system under which
performance goals were often vague, undemanding, and poorly communicated, with
few, if any, consequences for failing to meet them. A demanding goal might
maximize efforts toward improvement by state public school systems, even if the
goal is not met. Further, if a less ambitious goal were to be adopted, what lower level
of pupil performance might be acceptable, and for which pupils?
At the same time, by setting deadlines by which all pupils must achieve at the
proficient or higher level, the AYP provisions of NCLB create an incentive for states
to weaken their pupil performance standards to make them easier to meet. In many
states, only a minority of pupils (sometimes a small minority) are currently achieving
at the proficient or higher level on state reading and mathematics assessments. Even
in states where the percentage of all pupils scoring at the proficient or higher level
is substantially higher, the percentage of those in many of the pupil groups identified
under NCLB’s AYP provisions is substantially lower. It would be extremely difficult
for such states to reach a goal of 100% of their pupils at the proficient level, even
within 10-12 years, without reducing their performance standards.
There has thus far been some apparent movement toward lowering proficiency
standards in a small number of states. Reportedly, a few states have redesignated
lower standards (e.g., “basic” or “partially proficient”) as constituting a “proficient”
level of performance for Title I-A purposes, or established new “proficient” levels

of performance that are below levels previously understood to constitute that level
of performance, and other states have considered such actions.³⁹ For example, in
submitting its accountability plan (which was approved by ED), Colorado stated that
it would deem students performing at both its “proficient” and “partially proficient”
levels, as defined by that state, as being “proficient” for NCLB purposes.⁴⁰ In its
submission, the state argued that “Colorado’s standards for all students remain high
in comparison to most states. Colorado’s basic proficiency level on CSAP is also
high in comparison to most states.” Similarly, Louisiana decided to identify its
“basic” level of achievement as the “proficient” level for NCLB purposes, stating that
“[t]hese standards have been shown to be high; for example, equipercentile equating
of the standards has shown that Louisiana’s ‘Basic’ is somewhat more rigorous than
NAEP’s ‘Basic.’ In addition, representatives from Louisiana’s business community
and higher education have validated the use of ‘Basic’ as the state’s proficiency
go a l . ”⁴¹
This is an aspect of NCLB’s AYP provisions on which there will likely be
continuing debate. It is unlikely that any state, and few schools or LEAs of
substantial size and a heterogeneous pupil population, will meet NCLB’s ultimate
AYP goal, unless state standards of proficient performance are significantly lowered
or states aggressively pursue the use of such statistical techniques as setting high
minimum group sizes and confidence intervals (described below) to substantially
reduce the range of pupil groups considered in AYP determinations or effectively
lower required achievement level thresholds.
Some states have addressed this situation, at least in the short run, by
“backloading” their AYP standards, requiring much more rapid improvements in
performance at the end of the 12-year period than at the beginning. These states have
followed the letter of the statutory language that requires increases of “equal
increments” in levels of performance after the first two years, and at least once every
three years thereafter.⁴² However, they have “backloaded” this process by, for
example, requiring increases only once every two-three years at the beginning, then
requiring increases of the same degree every year for the final years of the period
leading up to 2013-2014. For example, both Indiana and Ohio established
incremental increases in the threshold level of performance for schools and LEAs
that are equal in size, and that are to take effect in the school years beginning in 2004,
2007, 2010, 2111, 2012, and 2013. As a result, the required increases per year are
three times greater during 2010-2013 than in the 2004-2009 period. These states may

³⁹ See, for example, “States Revise the Meaning of ‘Proficient’,” Education Week, October

9, 2002.

⁴⁰ See [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/cocsa.pdf], p. 7.
⁴¹ See [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/lacsa.doc], p 12.
⁴² According to Section 1111(b)(2)(H), “Each State shall establish intermediate goals for
meeting the requirements, ... of this paragraph and that shall — (i) increase in equal
increments over the period covered by the State’s timeline....” The program regulations also
would seem to require increases in equal increments: “Each State must establish
intermediate goals that increase in equal increments over the period covered by the
timeline....” (34 C.F.R. § 200.17).

be trying to postpone required increases in performance levels until NCLB provisions
are reconsidered, and possibly revised, by Congress.
Confidence Intervals and Data-Averaging
Many states have used one or both of a pair of statistical techniques to attempt
to improve the validity and reliability of AYP determinations. Use of these
techniques also tends to have an effect, whether intentional or not, of reducing the
number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP standards.
The averaging of test score results for various pupil groups over two- or three-
year periods is explicitly authorized under NCLB, and this authority is used by many
states. In some cases, schools or LEAs are allowed to select whether to average test
score data, and for what period (two years or three), whichever is most favorable for
them. As discussed above, recent policy guidance also explicitly allows the use of
averaging for participation rates.
The use of another statistical technique was not explicitly envisioned in the
drafting of NCLB’s AYP provisions, but its inclusion in the accountability plans of
several states has been approved by ED. This is the use of “confidence intervals,”
usually with respect to test scores, but in a couple of states also to the determination
of minimum group size (see below). This concept is based on the assumption that
any test administration represents a “sample survey” of pupils’ educational
achievement level. As with all sample surveys, there is a degree of uncertainty
regarding how well the sample results — average test scores for the pupil group —
reflect pupils’ actual level of achievement. As with surveys, the larger the number
of pupils in the group being tested, the greater the probability that the group’s average
test score will represent their true level of achievement, all else being equal. Put
another way, confidence intervals are used to evaluate whether achievement scores
are below the required threshold to a statistically significant extent.
“Confidence intervals” may be seen as “windows” surrounding a threshold test
score level (i.e., the percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher level required
under the state’s AYP standards).⁴³ The size of the window varies with respect to the
number of pupils in the relevant group who are tested, and with the desired degree
of probability that the group’s average score represents their true level of
achievement. This is analogous to the “margin of error” commonly reported along
with opinion polls. While test results are not based on a small sample of the relevant
population, as are opinion poll results, since the tests are to be administered to the
full “universe” of pupils, the results from any particular test administration are
considered to be only estimates of pupils’ true level of achievement, or of the
effectiveness of a school or LEA in educating specified pupil groups, and thus the
“margin of error” or “confidence interval” concepts are deemed by many to be
relevant to these test scores. The probability, or level of confidence, is most often set
at 95%, but in some cases may be as low as 90% or as high as 99% — that is, it is

⁴³ Alternatively, the confidence interval “window” may be applied to average test scores for
each relevant pupil group, that would be compared to a fixed threshold score level to
determine whether AYP has been met.

95% (or 90% or 99%) certain that the true achievement level for a group of pupils is
within the relevant confidence interval of test scores above and below the average
score for the group. All other relevant factors being equal, the smaller the pupil
group, and the higher the desired degree of probability, the larger is the window
surrounding the threshold percentage.
For example, consider a situation where the threshold percentage of pupils at the
proficient or higher level of achievement in reading for elementary schools required
under a state’s AYP standards is 40%. Without applying confidence intervals, a
school would simply fail to make AYP if the average scores of all of its pupils, or of
any of its relevant pupil groups meeting minimum size thresholds, is below 40%. In
contrast, if confidence intervals are applied, windows are established above and
below the 40% threshold, turning the threshold from a single point to a variable range
of scores. The size of this score range or window will vary depending on the size of
the pupil group whose average scores are being considered, and the desired degree
of probability (95% or 99%) that the average achievement levels for pupils in each
group are being correctly categorized as being “truly” below the required threshold.
In this case, a school would fail to make AYP with respect to a pupil group only if
the average score for the group is below the lowest score in that range.⁴⁴
The use of confidence intervals to determine whether group test scores fall
below required thresholds to a statistically significant degree improves the validity
of AYP determinations, and addresses the fact that test scores for any group of pupils
will vary from one test administration to another, and these variations may be
especially large for a relatively small group of pupils. At the same time, the use of
confidence intervals reduces the likelihood that schools or (to a lesser extent) LEAs
will be identified as failing to make AYP. Also, for relatively small pupil groups and
high levels of desired accuracy (especially a 99% probability), the size of confidence
intervals may be relatively large. Ultimately, the use of this technique may mean that
the average achievement levels of pupil groups in many schools will be well below
100% proficiency by 2013-2014, yet the schools would still meet AYP standards
because the groups’ scores are within the relevant confidence interval.
Population Diversity Effects
Minimum Pupil Group Size (n). Another important technical factor in state
AYP standards is the establishment of the minimum size (n) for pupil groups to be
considered in AYP calculations. NCLB recognizes that in the disaggregation of pupil
data for schools and LEAs, there might be pupil groups that are so small that average
test scores would not be statistically reliable, or the dissemination of average scores
for the group might risk violation of pupils’ privacy rights.

⁴⁴ The text above describes the way in which confidence intervals have been used by states
for AYP determinations. The concept could be applied in a different way, requiring scores
to be at or above the highest score in the “window” in order to demonstrate that a pupil
group had meet AYP standards to a statistically significant degree. This would reflect
confidence (at the designated level of probability) that a school or LEA had met AYP
standards, whereas the current usage reflects confidence that the school or LEA had failed
to meet AYP standards.

Both the statute and ED regulations and other policy guidance have left the
selection of this minimum number to state discretion. While most states have
reportedly selected a minimum group size between 30 and 50 pupils, the range of
selected values for “n” is rather large, varying from as few as five to as many as 200
pupils⁴⁵ under certain circumstances. One state (North Dakota) has set no specific
level for “n,” relying only on the use of confidence intervals (see above) to establish
reliability of test results. Although most states have always set a standard minimum
size for all pupil groups, some states until recently established higher levels of “n”
for pupils with disabilities or LEP pupils.⁴⁶
In general, the higher the minimum group size, the less likely that many pupil
groups will actually be separately considered in AYP determinations. (Pupils will
still be considered, but only as part of the “all pupils” group, or possibly other
specified groups.) This gives schools and LEAs fewer thresholds to meet, and
reduces the likelihood that they will be found to have failed to meet AYP standards.
In many cases, if a pupil group falls below the minimum group size at the school
level, it is still considered at the LEA level (where it is more likely to meet the
threshold). In addition, since minimum group sizes for reporting achievement data
are typically lower than those used for AYP purposes,⁴⁷ scores are often reported for
pupil groups who are not separately considered in AYP calculations. At the same
time, relatively high levels for “n” weaken NCLB’s specific focus on a variety of
pupil groups, many of them disadvantaged, such as LEP pupils, pupils with
disabilities, or economically disadvantaged pupils.
Separate Focus on Specific Pupil Groups. There are several ongoing
issues regarding NCLB’s requirement for disaggregation of pupil achievement results
in AYP standards, namely the requirement that a variety of pupil groups be
separately considered in AYP calculations. The first of these was discussed
immediately above: the establishment of minimum group size, with the possible
result that relatively small pupil groups will not be considered in the schools and
LEAs of states that set “n” at a comparatively high level, especially in states that set
a higher level for certain groups (e.g., pupils with disabilities) than others.
A second issue arises from the fact that the definition of the specified pupil
groups has been left essentially to state discretion. This is noteworthy particularly
with respect to two groups of pupils: LEP pupils and pupils in major racial and
ethnic groups. Regarding LEP pupils, many have been concerned about the difficulty
of demonstrating that these pupils are performing at a proficient level if this pupil
group is defined narrowly to include only pupils unable to perform in regular
English-language classroom settings. In other words, if pupils who no longer need
special language services are no longer identified as being LEP, how will it be

⁴⁵ In Texas, the minimum group size for pupil groups (other than the “all pupils” group,
where the minimum is 40) is the greater of 50 students or 10% of all students in a school or
LEA (up to a maximum of 200). In California, the minimum group size is the greater of 50
students or 15% of all students in the school or LEA (up to a maximum of 100).
⁴⁶ Under regulations published on April 9, 2007, this practice is no longer allowed.
⁴⁷ Minimum group sizes for AYP purposes are typically in the range of 30 to 40 pupils,
while those for reporting are typically in the range of five to 20 pupils.

possible to bring those who are identified as LEP up to a proficient level of
achievement?
In developing their AYP standards, some states addressed this concern by
including pupils in the LEP category for one or more years after they no longer need
special language services. As was discussed above, ED has recently published policy
guidance encouraging all states to follow this approach, allowing them to continue
to include pupils in the LEP group for up to two years after being mainstreamed into
regular English language instruction, and further allowing the scores of LEP pupils
to be excluded from AYP calculations for the first year of pupils’ enrollment in
United States schools. If widely adopted, these policies should reduce the extent that
schools or LEAs are identified as failing to meet AYP standards on the basis of the
LEP pupil group.
Another aspect of this issue arises from the discretion given to states in defining
“major racial and ethnic groups.” Neither the statute nor ED has defined this term.
Some states defined the term relatively comprehensively (e.g., Maryland includes
American Indian, African American, Asian, White, and Hispanic pupil groups) and
some more narrowly (e.g., Texas identifies only three groups — White, African
American, and Hispanic). A more narrow interpretation may reduce the attention
focused on excluded pupil groups. It would also reduce the number of different
thresholds some schools and LEAs would have to meet in order to make AYP.
A final, overarching issue arises from the relationship between pupil diversity
in schools and LEAs and the likelihood of being identified as failing to meet AYP
standards. All other relevant factors being equal (especially the minimum group size
criteria), the more diverse the pupil population, the more thresholds a school or LEA
must meet in order to make AYP. While in a sense this was an intended result of
legislation designed to focus (within limits) on all pupil groups, the impact of making
it more difficult for schools and LEAs serving diverse populations to meet AYP
standards may also be seen as an unintended consequence of NCLB. This issue has
been analyzed in a recent study by Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, who
concluded that such “subgroup targets cause large numbers of schools to fail ...
arbitrarily single out schools with large minority subgroups for sanctions ... or
statistically disadvantage diverse schools that are likely to be attended by minority
students.... Moreover, while the costs of the subgroup targets are clear, the benefits
are not. Although these targets are meant to encourage schools to focus more on the
achievement of minority youth, we find no association between the application of
subgroup targets and test score performance among minority youth.”⁴⁸ According to
the “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” published by ED in October 2007,
among schools with relatively low poverty rates, the percentage of schools failing to
make AYP ranged from 3% for those with only 1 subgroup to 25% for those with 3
subgroups, and 32% for those with 4 or 5 subgroups. Among schools with relatively

⁴⁸ Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, “Unintended Consequences of Racial Subgroup
Rules,” in Paul Peterson and Martin West, eds., No Child Left Behind? The Politics and
Practice of School Accountability (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), pp. 152-

176.

high poverty rates, the percentage of schools failing to make AYP ranged from 31%
for those with only 1 subgroup to 70% for those with 6 or 7 subgroups.
An additional study published by Policy Analysis for California Education
(PACE)⁴⁹ found that when comparing public schools in California with similar
aggregate pupil achievement levels, schools with larger numbers of different NCLB-
relevant demographic groups were substantially less likely to have met AYP
standards in the 2002-2003 school year. Similarly when comparing California public
schools with comparable percentages of pupils from low-income families, schools
with larger numbers of relevant demographic groups of pupils were much less likely
to have met AYP.
However, without specific requirements for achievement gains by each of the
major pupil groups, it is possible that insufficient attention would be paid to the
performance of the disadvantaged pupil groups among whom improvements are most
needed, and for whose benefit the Title I-A program was established. Under previous
law, without an explicit, specific requirement that AYP standards focus on these
disadvantaged pupil groups, most state AYP definitions considered only the
performance of all pupils combined. And it is theoretically possible for many
schools and LEAs to demonstrate substantial improvements in achievement by their
pupils overall while the achievement of their disadvantaged pupils does not improve
significantly, at least until the ultimate goal of all pupils at the proficient or higher
level of achievement is approached. This is especially true under a “status” model
of AYP such as the one in NCLB, under which advantaged pupil groups may have
achievement levels well above what is required, and an overall achievement level
could easily mask achievement well below the required threshold by various groups
of disadvantaged pupils.
One possible alternative to current policy would be to allow states to count each
student only once, in net, in AYP calculations, with equal fractions for each relevant
demographic category (e.g., a Hispanic LEP pupil from a low-income family would
count as one-third of a pupil in each group).
Number of Schools Identified and State Variations Therein
As was discussed earlier, concern has been expressed by some analysts since
early debates on NCLB that a relatively high proportion of schools would fail to meet
AYP standards. On the basis of assessment results for 2006-2007, approximately

28% of all public schools nationwide failed to make AYP, and approximately 12%

of all public schools were identified as needing improvement (i.e., failed to meet
AYP standards for two or more consecutive years). Future increases in performance
thresholds, as the ultimate goal of all pupils at the proficient or higher level of
achievement is approached, may result in higher percentages of schools failing to
make AYP.

⁴⁹ John R. Novak and Bruce Fuller, Penalizing Diverse Schools? PACE Policy Brief 03-4,
December 2003.

In response to these concerns, ED officials have emphasized the importance of
taking action to identify and move to improve underperforming schools, no matter
how numerous. They have also emphasized the possibilities for flexibility and
variation in taking corrective actions with respect to schools that fail to meet AYP,
depending on the extent to which they fail to meet those standards. It should also be
re-emphasized that many of the schools reported as having failed to meet AYP
standards have failed to meet AYP for one year only, while NCLB requires that a
series of actions be taken only with respect to schools or LEAs participating in ESEA
Title I-A that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years or more.
Further, some analysts argue that a set of AYP standards that one-quarter or
more of public schools fail to meet may accurately reflect pervasive weaknesses in
public school systems, especially with respect to the performance of disadvantaged
pupil groups. To these analysts, the identification of large percentages of schools is
a positive sign of the rigor and challenge embodied in NCLB’s AYP requirements,
and is likely to provide needed motivation for significant improvement (and
ultimately a reduction in the percentage of schools so identified).
Others have consistently expressed concern about the accuracy and efficacy of
an accountability system under which such a high percentage of schools is identified
as failing to make adequate progress, with consequent strain on financial and other
resources necessary to provide technical assistance, public school choice and
supplemental services options, as well as other corrective actions. In addition, some
have expressed concern that schools might be more likely to fail to meet AYP simply
because they have diverse enrollments, and therefore more groups of pupils to be
separately considered in determining whether the school meets AYP standards. They
also argue that the application of technical assistance and, ultimately, corrective
actions to such a high percentage of schools will dilute available resources to such
a degree that these responses to inadequate performance would be insufficient to
markedly improve performance. A few analysts even speculate that the AYP system
under NCLB is intended to portray large segments of American public education as
having “failed,” leading to proposals for large scale privatization of elementary and
secondary education.⁵⁰
The proportion of public schools identified as failing to meet AYP standards is
not only relatively large in the aggregate, but also varies widely among the states. As
was discussed above, the percentage of public schools identified as failing to make
AYP on the basis of assessment results for 2006-2007 ranged from 4% to 75%
among the states. This result is somewhat ironic, given that one of the major
criticisms of the pre-NCLB provisions for AYP was that they resulted in a similarly
wide degree of state variation in the proportion of schools identified, and the more
consistent structure required under NCLB was widely expected to lead to greater
consistency among states in the proportion of schools identified.
It seems likely that the pre-NCLB variations in the proportion of schools failing
to meet AYP reflected large differences in the nature and structure of state AYP

⁵⁰ See Alfie Kohn, “Test Today, Privatize Tomorrow: Using Accountability to ‘Reform’
Public Schools to Death,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 85, no. 8 (April 2004), pp. 568-577.

standards, as well as major differences in the nature and rigor of state pupil
performance standards and assessments. While the basic structure of AYP
definitions is now substantially more consistent across states, significant variations
remain with respect to the factors discussed in this section of the report (such as
minimum group size or use of confidence intervals), and substantial differences in
the degree of challenge embodied in state standards and assessments remain.
Overall, it seems likely that the key influences determining the percentage of a state’s
schools that fails to make AYP include (in no particular order): (1) degree of rigor
in state content and pupil performance standards; (2) minimum pupil group size (n)
in AYP determinations; (3) use of confidence intervals in AYP determinations (and
whether at a 95% or 99% level of confidence); (4) extent of diversity in pupil
population; (5) extent of communication about, and understanding of, the 95% test
participation rule; and (6) possible actual differences in educational quality.
95% Participation Rule
It appears that in many cases, schools or LEAs have failed to meet AYP solely
because of low participation rates in assessments, meaning that fewer than 95% of
all pupils, or of pupils in relevant demographic groups meeting the minimum size
threshold, took the assessments. While, as discussed above, ED recently published
policy guidance that relaxes the participation rate requirement somewhat — allowing
use of average rates over two- to three-year periods, and excusing certain pupils for
medical reasons — the high rate of assessment participation that is required in order
for schools or LEAs to meet AYP standards is likely to remain an ongoing focus of
debate.
Although few argue against having any participation rate requirement, it may
be questioned whether it needs to be as high as 95%. In recent years, the overall
percentage of enrolled pupils who attend public schools each day has been
approximately 93.5%, and it is generally agreed that attendance rates are lower in
schools serving relatively high proportions of disadvantaged pupils. Even though
schools are explicitly allowed to administer assessments on make-up days following
the primary date of test administration, and it is probable that more schools and LEAs
will meet this requirement as they become more fully aware of its significance, it is
likely to continue to be very difficult for many schools and LEAs to meet a 95% test
participation requirement.
State Variations in Assessments and Proficiency Standards
As noted above, it is likely that state variations in the percentage of schools
failing to meet AYP standards are based not only on underlying differences in
achievement levels, as well as a variety of technical factors in state AYP provisions,
but also on differences in the degree of rigor or challenge in state pupil performance
standards and assessments. Particularly now that all states receiving Title I-A grants
must also participate in state-level administration of NAEP tests in 4^th and 8^th grade
reading and math every two years, this variation can be illustrated for all states by
comparing the percentage of pupils scoring at the proficient level on NAEP versus
state assessments.

Such a comparison was conducted by a private organization, Achieve, Inc.,
based on 8^th grade reading and math assessments administered in the spring of 2003.⁵¹
For a variety of reasons (e.g., several states did not administer standards-based
assessments in reading or math to 8^th grade pupils in 2003), the analysis excluded
several states; 29 states were included in the comparison for reading, and 32 states
for math. According to this analysis, the percentage of pupils statewide who score
at a proficient or higher level on state assessments, using state-specific pupil
performance standards, was generally much higher than the percentage deemed to be
at the proficient or higher level on the NAEP tests, and employing NAEP’s pupil
performance standards. Of the states considered, the percentage of pupils scoring at
a proficient or higher level on the state assessment was lower than on NAEP
(implying a more rigorous state standard) for five states⁵² (out of 32) in math and only
two states (out of 29) in reading.
Further, among the majority of states where the percentage of pupils at the
proficient level or above was found to be higher on state assessments than on NAEP,
the relationship between the size of the two groups varied widely — in some cases
only marginally higher on the state assessment, and in others the percentage at the
proficient level was more than twice as high on the state assessment as on NAEP.
Although some portion of these differences in performance may result from
differences in the motivation of pupils to perform well (and of teachers to encourage
high performance) on NAEP versus state assessments, comparisons to NAEP results
help to illuminate the variations in state proficiency standards. It is not yet clear
whether such comparisons will significantly encourage greater consistency in those
standards.
A second issue is whether some states might choose to lower their standards of
“proficient” performance, in order to reduce the number of schools identified as
failing to meet AYP and make it easier to meet the ultimate NCLB goal of all pupils
at the proficient or higher level by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. In the
affected states, this would increase the percentage of pupils deemed to be achieving
at a “proficient” level, and reduce the number of schools failing to meet AYP
standards.
Although states are generally free to take such actions without jeopardizing their
eligibility for Title I-A grants, because performance standards are ultimately state-
determined and have always varied significantly, such actions have elicited public
criticism from ED. In a policy letter dated October 22, 2002, the Secretary of
Education stated
Unfortunately, some states have lowered the bar of expectations to hide the low
performance of their schools. And a few others are discussing how they can
ratchet down their standards in order to remove schools from their lists of low
performers. Sadly, a small number of persons have suggested reducing standards
for defining “proficiency” in order to artificially present the facts.... Those who

⁵¹ Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 2 of the No Child
Left Behind Act (January 2004), p. 61.
⁵² In two additional states, the percentages were essentially the same.

play semantic games or try to tinker with state numbers to lock out parents and
the public, stand in the way of progress and reform. They are the enemies of⁵³

equal justice and equal opportunity. They are apologists for failure.
⁵³ See [http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/10/10232002a.html].