1 minute after midnight tonight, the state will publicly release data on the new statewide MCA-II science exam. That leads to this question a reader asked on the AYP article.

Mike wrote:

"Is anyone familiar with what it takes to meet the standards? Aside from Adequate Yearly Progress are there other scores we should be looking at? What are the various categories? Any opinions on how meaningful these scores are?"

So, what is AYP, what are the tests that it consists of, and are there other tests we should look at?

Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, is comprised of scores in four areas. In a literal sense, yes, there are other scores you should be looking at; the testing measures that actu-ally make up AYP. These new science results do not apply to AYP, but NCLB does dictate that states report science standards in a move towards near 100 percent profi-ciency at certain levels.

As I spoke about in my last post, each school is broken down into subcells, and each subcell needs to make AYP in those four categories: proficiency and participation in the standardized tests, graduation rates and attendance.

If you want to sift through the requirements for 2008, feel free to do so:

http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/InformationTech/documents/Report/034414.pdf

Here's the abridged version.

Attendance:

Attendance is not determined by subcells, but only in an aggregated form. How atten-dance is determined is probably too complicated to be considered useful for most people, but here's the main crux:

Districts report Average Daily Membership to the state for their funding. They also re-port Average Daily Attendance, the actual days students came to school. Totaled up, ADA must equal 90 percent of ADM for a school to make AYP in attendance. There are some ins and outs there, but that's the basics.

Graduation:

Graduate is also only used in an aggregated form (although, like with attendance, there are some exceptions).

Again, lots of ins and outs there; the formula is in the MDE pdf file I linked to. The basic idea is that 80 percent of a class needs to graduate to meet AYP.

The standardized test element.

Under NCLB, each state must administer a standardized test that measures proficiency in both math and reading to students. Those tests must meet NCLB standards, but they are crafted by the states themselves. The tests must measure growth of student achievement, towards a goal of 100 percent proficient in 2014.

In Minnesota, that test is called the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment-Series II.

Participation:

Schools have a two-week window to get 95 percent of students in each subcell to take standardized tests.

Proficiency:

Here's the most talked about element of AYP. Under NCLB, districts are required to have 100 percent of students proficient in all levels by 2014 in reading and math. That's the directive. How states do that, and how they determine "proficient" is up to them. That gets into a whole world of controversy about who has harder tests, and are the com-parisons between states fair. A Northwest Evaluation Association/Fordham institute report called "The Proficiency Illusion" found great disparity between states (there's been back and forth on the validity of the report. I'm just using it as an example. You can read it yourself here http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=376 Here's the Minnesota specific report http://edexcellence.net/doc/proficiency_states/Minnesota.pdf)

Students are determined to have either not met, partially met, met or exceeded expecta-tions. Statewide targets increase each year; those targets are on page 19 of that MDE pdf file. The explanation of how those targets determine AYP is on page 49.

Safe Harbor

If a school did not make AYP in a proficiency measure, but improved by 10 percent over the previous year, it will make AYP under the safe harbor provision. More or less.

So, that's how AYP is determined, or at least a very, very brief overview (although it doesn't feel brief after writing it, or I'm sure reading it.)

Now, the question was asked, how important are is it?

That's a good question, and you'll get a different answer from a lot of people.

As I said before, different states have different standards. The fact that almost half of Minnesota's schools did not make AYP, while other states like Wisconsin do not have nearly as many not hitting the mark, does not mean Wisconsin has better schools. It could mean that, but not necessarily.

Also, over 40 percent of all schools that did not make AYP in Minnesota did so in only one category. That could mean the margin of a couple of students in each of these schools across the state turn an educational system's public image from good to bad or vice versa.

There are other tests to look at.

The science results that will be public are interesting in that they test something not nor-mally tested under NCLB, and there's all sorts of things you can draw from them. Unfor-tunately, I can't tell you about it yet. Embargo and what not.

There are two substitute tests for some students: the MTAS, given to special education students with the most severe issues, and the MTELL, a math substitute test for ELL students.

There are also scores of test models districts use themselves, mostly for more effective RTI work (response to intervention). A lot of area schools have jumped on the AIMSWeb bandwagon: http://www.aimsweb.com/

You also get into the issue of the punitive nature of NCLB. Schools that are Title I - in layman’s terms has a lot of poor students - that miss AYP in consecutive years can face penalties. For example, St. Charles elementary is under the "School Choice" option for penalties. Now, there aren't other elementary schools in St. Charles for students to choose from, but if there was the district would have to set aside Title I funds it gets for the busing of students to other schools.

A full breakdown on corrective actions can be found here: http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/NCLB/documents/FAQ/034531.pdf

If a school, over many years, does not make AYP in a serious enough way, it can be re-structured. If you want a somewhat relevant visual, think of the storyline to “Lean on Me” with Morgan Freeman.

But the question of whether or not AYP is really all that important is bigger than that. Since I just brought up St. Charles, I thought I'd let the district's superintendent, Tom Ames, get the final word here. I spoke to a bunch of people about AYP, and if anyone is interested in what they had to say I'll be glad to post them in the comment boxes.

This is an essay/position paper/what have you Ames sent me that describes what he de-fines as important, measurable data on student success:

"Helping Students and Schools Achieve What Really Matters

In May of 2007, a group of Hispanic parents in St. Charles asked to meet with adminis-trators of the local public schools. The meeting took place at St. Charles Borromeo Church in a relaxed and congenial atmosphere in which the parents expressed gratitude for the efforts of the District but also their concerns for the long-term success and well-being of their children.

What the parents conveyed during our two hour discussion was that they believe the schools need to better partner with them to help their children develop into knowledge-able, healthy, respectful, responsible and caring people. They want their children to real-ize the American dream of being a good citizen, a positive family member, and a highly skilled, productive worker. Moreover, the parents expressed their concerns about hazards that may prevent their children from achieving these things.

As an educated middle class parent of two children in college and one in high school, it struck me that the goals of the Hispanic parents for their children were identical to my own. I knew that for my own children their success in achieving these goals would be closely monitored by their mother and me. But as superintendent, I recognized that for the Hispanic children and all other groups, the school system lacked a process for moni-toring how well we had helped them achieve these things that really matter.

Yes, the school system had ample grades and test scores for the students while they were in attendance, but other than these proxy measures of what really matters, we lacked al-most any information, other than anecdotal, about long-term success.

Not only do schools lack the data regarding the achievement of their most important goals, but states and the federal government do also. A New York Times article reported on March 20, 2008, that Mississippi reported a graduation rate of 87% to the federal gov-ernment while another part of the State government reported the rate to be 63%. The article went on to point out that these types of discrepancies are not unique to Mississippi.

If schools are to best serve students and society, they must focus their energies on the current and long-term success of the children they serve. Only by having accurate longi-tudinal data regarding high school graduation rates, levels of post-secondary schooling completed, monthly earnings, levels of arrests, and general health statistics can we de-termine if our efforts to improve and reform education are equipping our youth for suc-cess at life in the twenty-first century.

Southeastern Minnesota is an area of the country that enjoys a high quality of life and a long history of government, universities, foundations, schools, and business working together for the common good. Now may be a time that leaders in our area can develop a system of educational accountability that will enhance the lives of generations to come and serve as a model for real educational reform.

The parents who met with the St. Charles administrators in May of 2007 wanted to make sure that the schools had their sights on the right targets for their children. They con-veyed a desire to partner with the school and community to help their children achieve all that they were capable of being. By creating a system in southeastern Minnesota that collects data on outcomes that really matter for our children, we will begin gathering the information that will allow us to better serve all of our students."

As always, if you have questions, comments, or what not, and you don’t want to post it in the comments section, feel free to e-mail me at nolan.rosenkrans@lee.net, or call me at 507-453-3519.