AIR Bullet Points

1
AIR Bullet Points Charts

• ASR Consortium
• June 2007

2
Interim Report Key Findings

• Based on findings from two federally funded
  studiesthe Study of State
• Implementation of Accountability and Teacher
  Quality Under NCLB
• (SSI-NCLB) and the National Longitudinal Study of
  NCLB (NLS-NCLB),
• covering data through SY 2004-05
• States, districts and schools had mostly met the
  relevant NCLB accountability requirements through
  2004-05.
• All states had enacted the accountability
  provisions required by NCLB, including academic
  achievement standards in reading and mathematics
  and other required performance indicators.
• gt 1/2 states were testing students in all
  required grades (3-8, HS) in reading and
  mathematics ahead of the 2005-06 NCLB deadline.
• But 20 states were behind schedule in
  implementing assessments that measure English
  language proficiency.
• About similar number of states were not able to
  notify schools of their performance on the
  statewide assessments before the start of the
  2004-05 school year.
• States 50 states DC and PR

from State and Local Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act Vol. 2 Accountability
under NCLB Interim Report, (Le Floch et al,
2007, p. 1 (Embargoed))
3
Key Findings, contd

• 75 of the nations schools made Adequate Yearly
  Progress (AYP) in 2003-04 of the 25 that missed
  AYP, half (51) did not succeed because the
  school as a whole (i.e., the all students
  group) or multiple student subgroups did not meet
  achievement standards. When schools did not make
  AYP for a single subgroup, it was usually for
  students with disabilities.
• About 1/3 of schools that missed AYP, did so
  because of SWDs or LEP student groups. About 2/3
  f those schools reported needing TA to improve
  instruction for these subgroups.

4
Other Findings

• In 2004-05, all states have content standards in
  reading, mathematics and science, but most
  continue to revise their standards or adopt new
  standards.
• States used their allowed flexibility to define
  (and amend) their AYP indicators, adding to the
  complexity of AYP calculations and their
  variability across states.
• The variation in states AYP starting pointsand
  thus in how much progress a state must
  demonstrate by 2014is strongly related to how
  high the states set their academic achievement
  standards for proficiency.

from State and Local Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act Vol. 2 Accountability
under NCLB Interim Report, (Le Floch et al,
2007, p. 3, 5 (Embargoed))
5
Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School
Poverty Level, Minority Level and Urbanicity,
2003-04
High Poverty, high-minority and urban schools
were less likely to make AYP
from State and Local Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act Vol. 2 Accountability
under NCLB Interim Report, (Le Floch et al,
2007, p. 6 (Embargoed))
6
Reasons Schools Missed AYP for SY2003-04
from State and Local Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act Vol. 2 Accountability
under NCLB Interim Report, (Le Floch et al,
2007, p. 7 (Embargoed))