American Education Research Association

1
Impact of NCLB Requirements in Washington
StateChallenges and Successes

• American Education Research Association
• April 2004
• Pete Bylsma, Director
• Research/Evaluation/Accountability
• Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

2
Overview of Presentation

• Process used to set policies
• Overview of state AYP policies
• First year results and reactions
• Changes proposed

3
Context of NCLB in Washington

• NCLB is long and complex
• Implementation is complicated and still evolving
• Previous state accountability system not well
  developed
• More work in less time with higher stakes

4
Process Used to Establish Policies

• Many analyses of alternative policies projecting
  results based on 2002 data
• Widespread stakeholder input and review of data
• Peer review went very smoothly
• Plan was relatively simple
• Impact data available to support all key
  decisions
• Making policies operational required lots of
  thought
• Eliminating ways to beat the system

5
Overview of State AYP Policies

• Annual goals on straight-line to 100 in 2014
• Separate results for tests in grades 4, 7, and 10
• N of 30 for accountability (10 for reporting)
• Continuous enrollment from October 1 through the
  testing period (ends in mid-May)
• Standard error at 95 confidence level
• On-time graduation rate goal 73 or 1 point
  above previous year (85 goal in 2014)
• Unexcused absence rate goal 1 or a
  reduction from previous year

6
AYP Yearly Targets
Baseline
7
GRADE 4 YEARLY TARGETS
AYP can be made if the percent meeting standard
is below the yearly target either via safe harbor
or when the standard error is included in the
total.
(Increments are rounded)
8
Summary of State AYP Results

• State made AYP in 78 of 111 categories (70)
• Of the proficiency categories, the state made 21
  of 54 (39)
• All Students, Asian/Pac. Is., and White
  groupsmade AYP in all grades in both reading and
  math
• American Indian, Black, and Low-Income groups
  made AYP in just one of six proficient categories
  (Grade 4 Math)
• Hispanic, Special Education, and Limited English
  groups did not make AYP in any proficiency
  category
• Graduation rate initially 79, later changed to
  66
• Unexcused absence rate 0.5

9
First Year Results

• Total number of districts and schools not making
  AYP was very close to projected numbers (42 and
  22)
• But far above previous results (0 and 3)
• Safe harbor helped very little
• Not making AYP is a function of the N
• (Secondary schools less likely to make AYPdue to
  larger enrollment in tested grades)
• Most students are in districts that did not make
  AYP

10
Responses to NCLB

• Much more attention being given to data quality
  and achievement gap (motivation to change)
• Widespread cynicism about law and lack of funding
  to meet federal mandates
• Negative impact on public perception of testing
  in general
• Narrowing curriculum to tested subjects
• Some focus on beating the system rather than
  serving students temptation to lower standards

11
State 2003 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
All Students Category in Reading
2002-03
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
Percent meeting standard
2003 figures include results from the alternate
assessment, include the standard error, and are
based on results of continuously enrolled students
12
State 2003 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
2003 Goal 35.6
13
State 2003 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
14
State 2003 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
15

• Unexcused Absence Rates Among 296 Districts

16
AYP Results on the Web
http//reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/
17
District 2003 AYP Results (All Grades)
296 Districts
18
Percent of Students in Districtsby AYP Result
(All Grades)
296 Districts
19
Odds of a District Making AYP Declines as
Enrollment Increases
Less than 30 in a grade
20
District 2003 AYP Results by Grade
21
Percent of Students in District by Grade
22
Example District AYP ResultsOlympia School
District, 9000 students
23
District AYP Results, 2003Grade 4 Reading by
Group
24
District 2003 AYP Group ResultsAll Grades in
Reading
25
District AYP Results, 2003Number of Groups Not
Making AYP in the 123 Districts
111 possible
26
School 2003 Results (All Grades)Adequate Yearly
Progress
27
Percent of Students in Schoolsby AYP Result (All
Grades)
28
School 2003 Results (By Grade Level)Adequate
Yearly Progress
29
Percent of Students in Schoolsby AYP Result and
Grade
30
School AYP Results, 2003Number of Categories Not
Making AYP
31
51 Schools in School Improvement
Total of 432 Schools Not Making AYP

• 44 of the 51 schools receive Title I funds
• 5 of the 51 made AYP in 2003 and remained in
  school improvement status

13 schools made adequate yearly progress for the
second year in a row and were removed from
school improvement status.
32
Proposed Changes

• Revise on-time graduation rate goals
• More accountability for small schools (N of
  10-29)
• Increase N for LEP and special education
• Increase confidence level to 99
• Use new flexibility for LEP testing,
  participation
• Add recognition system
• Develop criteria to differentiate need/assistance
• Clarify appeals process
• Use new student information system