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

Gina LaPlaca
Grand Canyon University
Special Education Litigation & Law
SPE 350
Dr. Ware-Howard
September 10, 2011
 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
 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
 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)
 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)
 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, AfricanAmerican 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
 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
 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.
 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,
http:www.eastmansmith.com/documents/public
ations/AYP.pdf