Laws & Guidance ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
Adequate Yearly Progress and Modified Achievement Standards: Interim State Policy Options
May 10, 2005

 More Resources

While the Department works to complete final regulations on modified achievement standards, eligible States may apply one of the following interim policy options to the 2004-05 school year adequate yearly progress (AYP) decisions. The Secretary will also consider other options offered by a State. However, a State must use the same option throughout the State. Please note that these interim options are in addition to the flexibility afforded a State by the Title I regulations to include in AYP determinations the proficient scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, subject to a 1.0 percent cap at the district and State levels.

Transition Option #1
Eligible States without modified achievement standards may choose this option, or may propose an alternate approach. Option 1 applies only to schools and districts that did not make AYP based solely on the students with disabilities (SWD) subgroup scores. This option allows a State to make a mathematical adjustment to the proficiency rate in order to provide additional credit to schools or districts that missed the AYP target solely based on the achievement of students with disabilities. States must use the same option for all the relevant schools and districts.

In general, eligible States may calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of special education students (as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all students assessed. For this year only, this proxy will then be added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient. This adjusted percent proficient is what a State may use to reexamine if the school made AYP for the 2004-05 school year. What follows is a step-by-step explanation and an example.

1. Calculate what 2.0 percent of the total number of students assessed within the State equates to solely within the SWD subgroup by dividing 2.0 by the percentage of students who have disabilities. This number, which will be a constant for every school, will be the basis for flexibility in school AYP determinations.

2. Identify all schools that did not make AYP solely on the basis of the SWD subgroup and the proficiency rate of those students in each school.

3. Calculate the adjusted percent proficient for each school's SWD subgroup. This adjustment is equal to the sum of the actual percent of proficient scores of this subgroup plus the proxy percent calculated in Step 1.

4. Compare this adjusted percent proficient for each school identified in Step 2 to the State's annual measurable objective (AMO). This comparison must be conducted without the use of confidence intervals or other statistical treatments.

1. If the adjusted proficiency rate for the school's SWD subgroup meets or exceeds the State's AMO, the school may be considered to have made AYP for the 2004-05 school year.
2. If the adjusted proficiency rate for the school's SWD subgroup does not meet or exceed the State's AMO, the school did not make AYP for the 2004-05 school year.
5. This process should be followed for reading and mathematics separately and also repeated at the district level, as needed.

6. The actual percent proficient must be reported to parents and the public; the State may also report the adjusted percent proficient.

Example

Assume that the State identifies 12% of its students as those with disabilities; 2.0% of the total number of students assessed equates to 16.67% of students with disabilities (2% divided by 12%). Using traditional rounding rules, the State may round this proxy to the nearest whole number; in this instance the proxy would be 17%.

The State's AMO for reading/language arts is 65%.

1. Five schools did not make AYP solely on the basis of their SWD subgroups in reading (Column 1). Actual proficiency rates are in Column 2.

2. Assign to each school's proficiency rate for its SWD subgroup the 17% proxy amount (Column 3).

3. Calculate the adjusted percent proficient for each school's SWD subgroup (Column 4).

4. Compare this adjusted proficiency rate to the State's AMO (Column 5). This comparison must be conducted without the use of confidence intervals or other statistical treatments.

1. Roosevelt and Washington made AYP for the 2004-05 school year.
2. Lincoln, Adams, and Coolidge Schools did not make AYP for this school year.

5. School report cards should reflect the unadjusted proficiency rate (Column 2), but may also note the adjusted AYP decision (Column 5).

6. Repeat the process for mathematics, and also at the district level as needed.

 STATE AMO=65%

 (1)School (2)Actual SWDproficient (3)Statewideadjustment as% of SWD (4)AdjustedProficiency Col 2 + Col 3 (5)AdjustedAYPDecision Roosevelt 54% 17% 71% Yes Washington 49% 17% 66% Yes Lincoln 45% 17% 62% No Adams 37% 17% 54% No Coolidge 16% 17% 33% No

Transition Option #2
Eligible States that meet the following requirements may count in AYP calculations the proficient scores of students with disabilities assessed based on modified achievement standards, subject to a 2.0 percent cap. Out-of-level assessments do not qualify as assessments based on modified achievement standards for this purpose.

Similar to the requirements for alternate achievement standards, an eligible State may count the scores of students with disabilities assessed based on modified achievement standards, if the State has:

• Administered a well-established modified assessment statewide for two years or more prior to SY 2004-05,

• Established clear guidelines for students with disabilities' participation in the assessment based on modified achievement standards,

• Employed a documented and validated standard-setting process to define the modified achievement standards, and

• Adopted the modified achievement standards and provided appropriate training for teachers and IEP teams.