	Background: Title I Outcome Accountability and the AYP Concept

Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the largest federal K-12 education program, authorizes financial aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children and youth at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. 100-297 ), the accountability provisions of this program have been increasingly focused on achievement and other outcomes for participating pupils and schools. 103-382 ), and particularly under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ), a key concept embodied in these outcome accountability requirements is that of "adequate yearly progress (AYP)" for schools, LEAs, and (more recently) states overall. The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the basis for identifying schools and LEAs where performance is inadequate, so that these inadequacies may be addressed, first through provision of increased support and, ultimately, through a variety of consequences. The authorization for ESEA programs expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111 th Congress may consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. This report will be updated regularly to reflect major legislative developments and available information. Under NCLB, the Title I-A requirements for state-developed standards of AYP were substantially expanded in scope and specificity. As under the IASA, AYP is defined primarily on the basis of aggregate scores of pupils on state assessments of academic achievement. One of the most important differences between AYP standards under NCLB and previous requirements is that under NCLB, AYP calculations must be disaggregated ; that is, they must be determined separately and specifically for not only all pupils but also for several demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state. In contrast to the previous statute, under which AYP standards had to be applied only to pupils, schools, and LEAs participating in Title I-A, AYP standards under NCLB must be applied to all public schools, LEAs, and for the first time to states overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However, consequences for failing to meet AYP standards need only be applied under federal law to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A. Another major break with the past is that state AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or advanced level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Data on Schools and LEAs Identified as Failing to Meet AYP

The most recent available compilations of state AYP data are discussed below in two categories: reports focusing on the number and percentage of schools failing to meet AYP standards for one or more years versus reports on the number and percentage of public schools and LEAs identified for improvement—that is, they had failed to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more . The AYP provisions of NCLB are challenging and complex, and have generated substantial criticism from several states, LEAs, and interest groups. These include the provision for an ultimate goal, use of confidence intervals and data-averaging, population diversity effects, minimum pupil group size (n), separate focus on specific pupil groups, number of schools identified and state variations therein, the 95% participation rule, state variations in assessments and proficiency standards, and several issues specific to the use of growth models to determine AYP. On the basis of assessment results for 2007-2008, 35% of all public schools nationwide failed to make AYP.
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), authorizes financial aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children and youth at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. Over the last several years, the accountability provisions of this program have been increasingly focused on achievement and other outcomes for participating pupils and schools. Since 1994, and particularly under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a key concept embodied in these requirements is that of "adequate yearly progress (AYP)" for schools, LEAs, and states. AYP is defined primarily on the basis of aggregate scores of various groups of pupils on state assessments of academic achievement. The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve as the basis for identifying schools and LEAs where performance is unsatisfactory, so that inadequacies may be addressed first through provision of increased support and, ultimately, a variety of "consequences."
Under NCLB, the Title I-A requirements for state-developed standards of AYP were substantially expanded. AYP calculations must be disaggregated—determined separately and specifically for not only all pupils but also for several demographic groups of pupils within each school, LEA, and state. In addition, while AYP standards had to be applied previously only to pupils, schools, and LEAs participating in Title I-A, AYP standards under NCLB must be applied to all public schools, LEAs, and to states overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However, consequences for failing to meet AYP standards need be applied under federal law only to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A. Another major break with the pre-NCLB period is that state AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or advanced level of achievement by 2014.
The overall percentage of public schools identified as failing to make AYP for one or more years on the basis of test scores in 2007-2008 was approximately 35% of all public schools. The percentage of schools for individual states in 2007-2008 varied from 7% to 80%. Approximately 13% of public schools were in the "needs improvement" status (i.e., they had failed to meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive years or more) on the basis of AYP determinations for 2007-2008 and preceding school years.
The AYP provisions of NCLB are challenging and complex, and they have generated substantial interest and debate. Debates regarding NCLB provisions on AYP have focused on the provision for an ultimate goal, use of confidence intervals and data-averaging, population diversity effects, minimum pupil group size (n), separate focus on specific pupil groups, number of schools identified and state variations therein, the 95% participation rule, state variations in assessments and proficiency standards, and several issues specific to the use of growth models to determine AYP. The authorization for ESEA programs expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress may consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. This report will be updated regularly to reflect major legislative developments and available information.