Public school ratings are an important element of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This article has an overview of public school ratings, examples of school plans, and statistics on public school ratings.
The 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), often called the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) law, was signed into law on January, 2002. It requires that by 2014, all students in all schools be proficient in math, reading, and language arts. To this end, it has established a system to ensure that local education agencies (LEAs) are showing adequate yearly progress (AYP). To this end, each state has to have a public school rating plan in place. Keep reading for more information on public school ratings.
Overview of Public School Ratings
Each state's plan set the proficiency levels that it must achieve each year. The proficiency is measured by annual tests and related indicators. The state accountability system has to meet certain criteria. It must:
- include all schools and districts and hold them all to the same criteria
- issue report cards and implement rewards and sanctions based on results
- include graduation rates as one of the additional indicators
- establish starting points for the Adequate Yearly Progress calculation and set objectives for improvement.
Examples of School Plans
Here is an example from the state of California, showing its separate objectives for Math and English/Language Arts based on the California Standards Tests:
ELA Year Math
13.6% 2002 16.0% (Starting Points)
24.4% 2005 26.5% (Intermediate Goals)
35.2% 2008 37.0%
46.0% 2009 47.5%
56.8% 2010 58.0%
67.6% 2011 68.5%
78.4% 2012 79.0%
89.2% 2013 89.5%
100.0% 2014 100.0% (Final Goals)
Vermont uses the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) and the New Standards Reference Exam and chooses to set progress goals by the annual measurable objective, which is defined in the state plan, with proficiency being defined as 500 points. Meeting the AMO is part of demonstrating AYP.
| 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 & 10 | 3-8 & 10 | 9-12 | 9-12 |
Year | Math AMOs | Reading AMOs | Math AMOs | Reading AMOs | Math AMOs | Reading AMOs |
2006 | 390 | 403 | 341 | 377 | 326 | 384 |
2007 | 390 | 403 | 341 | 377 | 326 | 384 |
2008 | 427 | 435 | 394 | 418 | 384 | 423 |
2009 | 427 | 435 | 394 | 418 | 384 | 423 |
2010 | 427 | 435 | 394 | 418 | 384 | 423 |
2011 | 463 | 468 | 447 | 459 | 442 | 462 |
2012 | 463 | 468 | 447 | 459 | 442 | 462 |
2013 | 463 | 468 | 447 | 459 | 442 | 462 |
2014 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |
Results
In the National Center for Education Statistics table of state ratings, it is possible to see what percentage of schools in each state failed to achieve AYP in 2004-2005 (the most recent year for which data is given), with data not being available for Arkansas or Nebraska, and only high school data being given for New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Looking at the column that shows “Percent of schools that did not make AYP based on data from 2004-2005,” we can see that the national percentage of schools not making AYP--26%--is higher than the percentage for 28 of the states. Hawaii has the highest AYP at 66%, with Florida close behind at 64%. Wisconsin has the lowest AYP at 2% , with Oklahoma close behind with 3%.
Here is a chart showing how things stack up.
% of schools not making AYP | States |
2 | Wisconsin |
3 | Oklahoma |
7 | Montana, Tennessee |
9 | Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota |
11 | Mississippi |
12 | Michigan |
13 | Minnesota, Texas, Utah |
14 | Arizona |
16 | Louisiana, South Dakota |
17 | West Virginia |
18 | Georgia |
19 | Pennsylvania, Virginia |
20 | Connecticut, New York, Washington, Wyoming |
23 | Maine |
24 | Ohio |
25 | Colorado, Maryland |
26 | Delaware, Kentucky |
27 | Illinois |
32 | Oregon |
35 | Missouri |
38 | California |
39 | New Jersey |
40 | Indiana |
41 | Alaska |
42 | North Carolina |
43 | Idaho, Massachusetts |
47 | Alabama |
53 | Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina |
55 | District of Columbia |
64 | Florida |
66 | Hawaii |
Obviously, this data needs to be contextualized to be appropriately interpreted. For example, information about students who are not native speakers of English and students with disabilities would throw light on this data.
Sources
National Center for Education Statistics - nces.ed.gov
NY Times - nytimes.com
Ed.gov Approved State Accountability Plans - ed.gov
Schoolwisepress - schoolwisepress.com
Public Schools vs. Charter Schools, Public School vs. Christian School