1. Adequate Progress Gina LaPlaca Grand Canyon University
Special Education Litigation & Law
SPE 350
Dr. Ware-Howard
September 10, 2011

2. Adequate Progress Definition
Adequate progress will vary from state to state.
Is a measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act
It allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the county is performing academically

3. Adequate Yearly Progress Court Cases: Franklin County Court of Appeals
Schools did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress
The schools learned of its AYP status when the department issued local report cards
They filed an appeal with the Department because it believed the AYP determination was in error
The department denied both schools because of the deadline
Both schools were denied because the procedures were invalid

4. Adequate Yearly Progress Court Cases: Reading, Pennsylvania School
Department had created an unfunded mandate by failing to provide funding to fulfill NCLB mandates
The sanctioned schools had not received federal funds designated to implement NCLB
The Department failed to provide test in Spanish for ELL students
Department failed to provide technical assistance to those schools that were sanctioned (Lecker,W. C., Ward, N, 2005)
Reading, Pennsylvania School District was not prepared for the AYP and the NCLB. They violated due to the process and filed an appeal for the six schools in the district to reviewing NCLB AYP. The State Department of Education refused the appeal. The policy allows the Department to review only the accuracy of the data, whether significant growth had been made by the schools or district in question.

5. How School Districts Measure Adequate Progress
State test must be the primary factor in the state’s measure of Adequate Yearly Progress
They must use at least one academic indicator of school performance
For secondary schools, the other academic indicator must be the high school graduation rate
States must set a baseline for measuring students’ performance toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by spring 2014.
Education, 2001)

6. How School Districts Measure Adequate Progress cont….
States must also create benchmarks for how students will progress each year to meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency
A state’s AYP must include separate measures for both reading/language arts and math. In addition, the measures must apply not only to students on average, but also to students in subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English-language learners, African- American students, Asian-American students, Caucasian students, Hispanic students and Native American Students.
To make AYP, at least 95 percent of students in each of the subgroups, as well as 95 percent of students in a school as a whole, must take the state tests, and each subgroup of students must meet or exceed the measurable annual objectives set by the state for each year (Department of Education, 2001

7. How Schools Districts are Held Accountable
School districts needs to make the AYP for two consecutive years
The states are required to develop rewards and sanctions for all schools
The law specifies a number of consequences for those schools receiving Title 1 funds
The parents must be notified of the students that need improvement
Schools must provide “supplement services,” such as tutoring, to students attending low-performing schools, and providing assistance to the school or district identified
Additional sanctions are added, including ordering restructuring of the school, if a school identified for improvement continuously fails to make AYP

8. Concerns and Challenges that May Arise Regarding AYP
Teachers are accountable for their students’ progress there are many obstacles to overcome that are not reflected by the scores on the yearly test.
Factors that affect students test scores:
Socioeconomic factors
Students’ special needs
Transiency
Limited experiential background
Difficult home environments, as well as language barriers
The testing requirements for NCLB do not reflect how hard school districts and teachers are working to help these students.
The standardized testing is not uniform from state to state, making comparisons impossible.
State standardized testing programs suffer from many of the same problems as any standardized testing process. In addition, these test may also add an extra layer of burden on teachers and administrators who live and teach in fear of failure (that is, their students’ failure of such test). Although the goals of standardized testing and grand-to ensure that students are getting a quality education the method will be forever flawed.

9. References
Keegan, L., et. Al., “Adequate Yearly Progress: Results, not Process,” in Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (ed.), 2002
Wiener, R, “Why Do we Have AYP…and How Is It Working?” Washington, DC: The Education Trust
Bauer, A II, Borman, A. J., Challenging Adequate Yearly Progress, ations/AYP.pdf