The Why Report - Recommendation #6
NSBA RECOMMENDATION #6
Same Subgroup – Schools and districts should apply sanctions only when the same subgroup fails to make AYP in the same subject or indicator for two consecutive years or more.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Federal policy unfairly punishes districts and schools that are successful in raising student achievement in specific subgroups, because it applies sanctions (school choice, supplemental educational services, restructuring, etc.) when one subgroup fails AYP in a subject for just one year and then a different subgroup fails for the first time in the next. This means that if a subgroup fails to make AYP but the school immediately remedies the problem in the very next school year, the school will still be subject to sanctions if another subgroup fails to make AYP for the first time (and doesn’t even get a chance to address the failure of the second subgroup to make AYP).
The issue here is not whether these two subgroups would or would not be counted as failing to make AYP, but whether sanctions would apply to the school. Why reduce the limited resources available by engaging in costly sanctions when the school has immediately raised student achievement of a previously failed group? Large and diverse schools and districts are more likely to face this “revolving door ” type of result, which, after several years could end up closing the school, turning it over to a private management company or replacing the entire staff.
LEGISLATIVE REMEDY
NSBA recommends that language be added to specify that sanctions will apply to districts and schools only when AYP is not met by the “same subgroup ” in the same subject or indicator for two consecutive years or more.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
In 2006, six states (CT, NV, OK, UT, PA, VA) asked the U.S. Department of Education to allow them to identify schools and districts for improvement only when the same subgroup didn’t make AYP in the same subject or indicator for two consecutive years. These requests have either been verbally denied or have not been responded in writing (Council of Chief State School Officers 2006).
Over the years, about 38 states have asked for ED’s permission to identify districts and schools based on the same subgroup criterion (CCSSO 2005). ED, however, has repeatedly rejected the request simply by citing its “inconsistency” with the law and regulations in a 2003 response to West Virginia. However, nothing in the law appears to prohibit same subgroup identification and no legal basis was cited in support of ED’s decision.
In 2006, ED rejected Pennsylvania’s request to identify for improvement only schools and districts that missed AYP solely due to the same subgroup in the same subject for two consecutive years. In 2005, only 61 of Pennsylvania’s 509 schools that had moved forward on the improvement timeline missed AYP due to the same subgroup missing the same subject for two consecutive years. Under the proposed same subgroup identification, resources could have been more strategically allocated for the 61 schools that appeared to have consistent difficulty in raising the achievement of specific student groups.
How schools are identified for improvement determines how certain Title I funds must be spent. Polk County Public Schools in Florida will spend about $219,000 to implement school choice and supplemental educational services in 2006-07 based on the current policy that identifies schools based on different subgroups failing to make AYP each year. District officials said these funds could be better spent on providing services to all Title I schools. While more resources can be devoted to the subgroup that missed AYP in a given year, districts should make spending decisions based on long term data. Changing priorities each year based on a different subgroup failing to make AYP is not a strategic way to spend limited funds.
In practice, same subgroup identification will help educators develop school improvement plans that target the problem areas. Schools identified for improvement due to a different subgroup every year have a hard time determining whether the failing of that subgroup is an anomaly, or whether it’s truly a problem that can be traced back to instructional programs for students in the subgroup. A moving subgroup target leads to a “sporadic and inconsistent implementation of school improvement effort ” (CCSSO 2005).
Virginia argued in its request for same subgroup identification that ED’s policy also fails to “recognize the different educational problems that may be evidenced and interventions that may be appropriate in cases where different subgroups fail to demonstrate AYP. Applying sanctions only to schools that consistently fail to raise achievement of the same subgroup will ensure that school improvement efforts focus on schools with systemic underperformance issues.
_________________________
This Why Report addresses 1 of 40 provisions contained in NSBA’s bill, No Child Left Behind Improvements Act.
To review other Why Reports on key provisions, go here.