How feasible is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? Simulations of school AYP "uniform averaging" and "safe harbor" under the No Child Left Behind Act

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 12, Issue , 2004, Pages

  Lee, Jaekyung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042567428     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v12n14.2004     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
2. Erpenbarch, W. J., Forte-Fast, E., Potts, A. (2003). Statewide Educational Accountability Under NCLB: Central Issues Arising from an Examination of State Accountability Workbooks and U.S. Department of Education Reviews Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at http://www.ccsso.org.
3. Hill, R. (1997). Calculating and reducing errors associated with the evaluation of adequate yearly progress. Paper presented at the annual assessment conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers (ERIC Publication No. ED 414307).
4. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores. In D. Ravitch (Ed.). Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002. (pp. 235-284). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5. Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2004). Large Mandates and Limited Resources: State Response to the No Child Left Behind Act and Implications for Accountability. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
6. La Marca, P. M. (2003). Factors affecting the statewide implementation of an adequate yearly progress model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago.
7. Lee, J. (2003). Evaluating Rural Progress in Mathematics Achievement: Threats to the Validity of "Adequate Yearly Progress." Journal of Research in Rural Education, 18(2), 67-77.
8. Lee, J. & Coladarci, T. (2002). Using Multiple Measures to Evaluate the Performance of Students and Schools: Learning from the Cases of Kentucky and Maine. Orono, ME: University of Maine. Available at http://www.ume.maine.edu/ naep/SSI
9. Lee, J, & McIntire, W. (2002). Using National and State Assessments to Evaluate the Performance of State Education Systems: Learning from the Cases of Kentucky and Maine. Orono, ME: University of Maine. Available at http://www.ume.maine.edu/naep/SSI
10. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-16.
11. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
12. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29-36.
13. Marion, S. F., White, C., Carlson, D., Erpenbach, W. J., Rabinowitz, S., Sheinker, J. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in the determination of adequate yearly progress. A Paper in the Series: Implementing The State Accountability System Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at http://www.ccsso.org.
14. New England Center for Educational Policy and Leadership (2002). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: A tool kit for New England state policy makers. Storrs, CT: Author.
15. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
16. Olson, L. (2002, April 18). 'Inadequate' yearly gains are predicted. Education Week. Available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug= 29ayp.h21.
17. Raising the bar: The complexities of "adequate yearly progress." (2002) Education Assessment Insider, 1(5), 5.
18. Thum, Y. (2002). Design of School Performance and School Productivity Indicators: Measuring Student and School Progress with the California API. Working draft.