Back to DC public schools main page
|
Major Areas State Education
Agency Calendars Columns Directories Organizations |
AYP REPORT SY 2004-2005Table of ContentsExecutive Summary District of Columbia Public Schools
Executive SummaryNo Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires the State Education Agency (SEA) to report on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of the districts and schools in the District of Columbia. To achieve “adequate yearly progress,” under the new law, a school, district, or state must:
This report provides a brief summary of the 2004-2005 AYP results for one Local Education Agency (LEA), the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). Under the State Accountability Plan, schools and districts failing to achieve AYP for two consecutive years are categorized as a “school in need of improvement – year 1.” Under the new State Accountability Plan, if a school or district fails to make AYP for three consecutive years, it is classified as “in need of corrective action.”1 As required by NCLB, schools that do not achieve AYP for two or more consecutive years are subject to progressive consequences. When a school is first classified as “in need of improvement,” parents must be offered the choice to transfer their child to a higher performing school (i.e., a school not in need of improvement). If the school does not achieve AYP for a third consecutive year – and is classified as “in need of corrective action” – the parents can request “supplemental (after school) services.” For SY2004-2005, the District of Columbia Public Schools is classified as a “district in need of corrective action” having failed to achieve AYP in reading and mathematics for three consecutive years at both the elementary and secondary level. For the elementary grades, the District met the academic targets for the total District but failed to achieve AYP for all subgroups. For the secondary grades, the District met the academic goal in reading for the total District but not for all subgroups. In mathematics, the secondary schools did not achieve the academic goal for the total District. Demographics of the District of Columbia Public SchoolsThe data in Figures 1a-1d and Table 1 provide the statistical context for the results presented in this report. Student Population by Race and Ethnicity
Figure 1a: Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity (Percentage)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grade | Enrollment | Enrollment (%) |
| Pre-School | 1,385 | 2% |
| Pre-Kindergarten | 2,988 | 5% |
| Kindergarten | 4,494 | 7% |
| Grade 1 | 4,725 | 8% |
| Grade 2 | 4,429 | 7% |
| Grade 3 | 4,486 | 7% |
| Grade 4 | 4,461 | 7% |
| Grade 5 | 4,670 | 7% |
| Grade 6 | 4,519 | 7% |
| Grade 7 | 3,989 | 6% |
| Grade 8 | 3,941 | 6% |
| Grade 9 | 4,570 | 7% |
| Grade 10 | 3,638 | 6% |
| Grade 11 | 2,973 | 5% |
| Grade 12 | 2,349 | 4% |
| Non-graded | 4,689 | 8% |
| Total | 62,306 | 100% |
Figure 1c: 2001-2005 Special Education Student Enrollment
SY2004-2005 marked a period of dramatic changes in the District of Columbia Public Schools in terms of accountability and assessment. New standards were adopted and modified, new assessments are being developed, and a new accountability plan was adopted. After consultation with the U.S. Department of Education and assessment experts around the country, it was determined that the Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT-9) would be administered for the last time in spring 2005. This decision meant that the state would not meet the timeline for replacing the SAT-9 with a standards-based assessment as specified in the 2002 Compliance Agreement. However, this decision supported the goal of aligning the new assessments with highquality English language arts and mathematics standards. The SAT-9 was administered in a reduced number of grade levels – grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. By reducing the number of students assessed, the district was able to more effectively focus on the implementation of the new standards including professional development for teachers and principals and the development of the new assessment. Furthermore, the SAT-9 was not administered at grades 1-2 in spring 2005. It was determined that schools would receive training and support for more developmentally appropriate assessment tools. These changes are reflected in the data presented in this report.
Reducing the number of grade levels tested, for example, naturally also reduced the number of students tested. This change significantly reduced the number of schools with subgroup data (e.g., students with disabilities) for which they are accountable.
The new State Accountability Plan introduced several changes in the ways schools are accountable. For example, incentive schools were identified for the first time, as were schools in need of “corrective action” and “restructuring.” More details about these changes are discussed in the report. A brief summary of some of the changes in the areas of assessment and accountability is presented in the chart below.
| Actions | Timeline |
| District of Columbia adopted the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for reading and mathematics | November 2004 |
| Requested waiver from the requirements of the 2002 Compliance Agreement | December 2004 |
| Notified the US Department of Education that the SAT-9 would be administered in spring 2005 to students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 | December 2004 |
| Complete contract with Harcourt Measurement to administer the SAT-9 in spring 2005 | December 2004 |
| Rescheduled the US DOE audit of the state assessment program for February 2006 | January 2005 |
| DC Board of Education adopted the new DC Content Standards for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 in reading and mathematics | March 2005 |
| Administer SAT9 at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 | April 2005 |
| Presented the New District of Columbia Accountability Plan to the DC Board of Education | June 2005 |
| Modify the four-year contract with CTB McGraw-Hill to develop the new state assessment – DC CAS | June 2005 |
The District’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results are presented in Figures 2a-2c.
The number and percentage of schools achieving AYP in reading and mathematics increased significantly from 63 (40%) in SY2003-2004 to 72 (51%) in SY2004-2005.
Conversely, the number of schools not achieving AYP declined from 93 (60%) to 70 (49%).
The percentage of schools making AYP for attendance also increased from 85 percent to 89 percent.
The number and percentage of elementary schools achieving AYP in reading and mathematics increased significantly – from 55 (52%) in SY2003-2004 to 58 (58%) in SY2004-2005.
Conversely, the number of elementary schools not making AYP decreased from 51 (48%) to 42 (42%).
The percentage of elementary schools achieving AYP for attendance declined from 89 percent in SY2003-2004 to 87 percent in SY2004-2005.
The number and percentage of secondary schools achieving AYP in reading and mathematics increased from 8 (16%) in SY2003-2004 to 14 (33%) in SY2004-2005.
Conversely, the number of secondary schools not making AYP decreased from 42 (84%) to 28 (67%).
Increases for the middle and junior high schools reflect (in part) a decline in the number of schools with 40 or more students in some subgroups.
The percentage of secondary schools achieving AYP for attendance increased from 71 percent in SY2003-2004 to 96 percent in SY2004-2005.
Attendance is the “other academic indicator” for elementary, middle, and junior high schools – see Table 2a and 2b.
The AYP criterion for daily attendance is 90 percent.
Overall, 111 achieved AYP for attendance in SY2004-2005.
14 schools did not achieve AYP for attendance in SY2004-2005.
| NCLB Status (for attendance) | SY2003-04 (105) | SY2004-05 (100) |
| Made AYP | 94 | 87 |
| Did not achieve AYP | 11 | 13 |
| In Need of Improvement (2 years) | 5 | 5 |
| In Need of Corrective Action (3 years) | 0 | 3 |
| In Need of Improvement or Corrective Action Only Because of Attendance | 4 | 32 |
| Made AYP but still classified as In Need of Improvement | 0 | 2 |
| NCLB Status (for attendance) | SY2003-04 (31) | SY2004-05 (25)3 |
| Made AYP | 22 | 24 |
| Did not achieve AYP | 9 | 1 |
| In Need of Improvement (2 years) | 6 | 5 |
| In Need of Corrective Action (3 years) | 0 | 1 |
| In Need of Improvement or Corrective Action Only Because of Attendance | 1 | 0 |
| Made AYP but still classified as In Need of Improvement | 0 | 2 |
A summary of the SY2004-2005 state assessment result disaggregated by subgroups is presented below. The subgroup data show the SY2003-2004 and SY2004-2005 test results for racial and ethnic subgroups as well as for students with disabilities, English language learners, and economically disadvantages students.
Individual school assessment results by subgroups are presented in Appendix A.
Student achievement results in reading for SY2004 and SY2005 disaggregated by racial and ethnic student subgroups are presented in Figure 3.
The overall District gains at the elementary level reflect the significant gains by the Black and Hispanic students.
To highlight the gaps among the racial and ethnic subgroups, comparisons between pairs of subgroups are presented in Figures 3a-3c.
Student achievement results in mathematics for SY2004 and SY2005 disaggregated by racial and ethnic student subgroups are presented in Figure 4.
The overall District gains at the elementary level reflect the significant gains by the Black and Hispanic students.
Gains were also achieved by the Asian and White student subgroups.
To highlight the gaps among the racial and ethnic subgroups, comparisons between pairs of subgroups are presented in Figures 4a-4c.
Student achievement results in reading for SY2004 and SY2005 disaggregated by racial and ethnic student subgroups are presented in Figure 5.
The overall District declines at the secondary level reflect the slight decreases for the largest student subgroup – Black students.
To highlight the gaps among the racial and ethnic subgroups, comparisons between pairs of subgroups are presented in Figures 5a-5c.
Student achievement results in reading for SY2004 and SY2005 disaggregated by racial and ethnic student subgroups are presented in Figure 6.
The overall District declines at the secondary level reflect the decreases for the largest student subgroup – Black students – as well as decreases for White and Asian students.
To highlight the gaps among the racial and ethnic subgroups, comparisons between pairs of subgroups are presented in Figures 6a-6c.
Large gains were achieved by both the students with disabilities and the LEP/NEP students – see Figures 7a and 7b.
The gains for the economically disadvantaged students are similar to the gains for the District overall.
Achievement across all groups increased.
Large gaps exist between students with disabilities and other students.
The gap between English language learners and other students was reduced dramatically and nearly eliminated.
| Subgroups | SY2003-2004 | SY2004-2005 | ||||
| Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | |
| Students With Disabilities | 16.8 | 54.2 | -37.4 | 24.5 | 56.9 | -32.4 |
| LEP/NEP | 30.8 | 48.1 | -17.3 | 50.4 | 50.1 | 0.3 |
| Econ. Disadvantaged | 40.9 | 61.6 | -20.8 | 46.0 | 61.5 | -15.5 |
Achievement for all groups increased.
Although the gap decreased somewhat, large gaps still exist between students with disabilities and other students.
The gap between English language learners and other students was eliminated.
| Subgroups | SY2003-2004 | SY2004-2005 | ||||
| Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | |
| Students With Disabilities | 15.6 | 66.6 | -51.0 | 22.1 | 67.3 | -45.2 |
| LEP/NEP | 50.8 | 56.4 | -5.6 | 69.2 | 56.5 | 12.7 |
| Econ. Disadvantaged | 51.3 | 68.4 | -17.0 | 55.1 | 65.3 | -10.3 |
The percentage of students scoring at the proficient level remained about the same (or declined slightly) in reading and math – see Figures 8a and 8b.
Gains were achieved in reading by the LEP/NEP students – see Figure 8a.
The gap between English language learners and other students decreased as achievement for the group increased.
| Subgroups | SY2003-2004 | SY2004-2005 | ||||
| Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | |
| Students With Disabilities | 8.1 | 38.0 | -29.8 | 8.3 | 36.8 | -28.6 |
| LEP/NEP | 7.3 | 32.4 | -25.1 | 12.3 | 31.2 | -19.0 |
| Econ. Disadvantaged | 25.3 | 39.9 | -14.6 | 25.2 | 38.1 | -12.9 |
The gap between English language learners and other students increased slightly.
The gap between students with disabilities and other students decreased.
| Subgroups | SY2003-2004 | SY2004-2005 | ||||
| Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | Students in Subgroup | All Other Students | Gap | |
| Students With Disabilities | 7.9 | 46.2 | -38.3 | 8.5 | 40.1 | -31.6 |
| LEP/NEP | 42.2 | 36.9 | 5.3 | 41.9 | 32.1 | 9.9 |
| Econ. Disadvantaged | 32.9 | 43.7 | -10.8 | 28.2 | 39.3 | -11.2 |
The District reading and mathematics results for the elementary and secondary levels are presented in Figures 9a-9d.
The results for the elementary schools are presented in Figures 9a-9b.
The percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in reading increased in 2004-2005 (see Figure 9a).5
The percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in mathematics increased in 2004-2005 (see Figure 9b).
The results for the secondary schools are presented in Figures 9c-9d.
The percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in reading decreased in 2004-2005 (see Figure 9c).
The percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in mathematics decreased in 2004-2005 (see Figure 9d).
The Declaration of Education identified specific goals in relation to the state assessment.
The citywide results are summarized in Table 4.
For the elementary grades – grades 3 and 5 – these goals were met for both reading and mathematics.
Conversely, for the secondary grades – grades 8 and 10 – the goals were not met.
| SY2003-2004 | SY2004-2005 | 2005 Goal | |
| Elementary | |||
| English Language Arts | 46% | 50% | 50% |
| Mathematics | 56% | 58% | 57% |
| Secondary | |||
| English Language Arts | 31% | 30% | 37% |
| Mathematics | 37% | 33% | 42% |
As noted above, during SY2004-2005 a new State Accountability Plan was introduced. The new plan includes five categories:
Incentive Schools
Targeted Assistance Schools
Schools in Need of Improvement
Corrective Action Schools
Schools in Need of Restructuring
This plan, for the first time, provides recognitions as well as interventions. In addition, schools that fail to achieve the AYP goals for the first time are identified so that steps can be taken to prevent them from being classified as “in need of improvement.” By accelerating the NCLB identification model by one year, interventions will be introduced immediately when schools do not achieve the goals and progressive consequences will take effect earlier if schools continue to not make progress.
The SY2005-2006 accountability results for schools are presented in Appendix B.
The number of incentive schools declined slightly.
A significant number of schools moved from being “schools in need of improvement” to “schools in need of corrective action.”
Six schools that were previously classified as “schools in restructuring – year 1” are now classified as “schools in restructuring – year 2.”
| DC Accountability Plan Categories | Years failing to make AYP | Number of Schools Identified Under New DC Accountability Plan | |
| SY2004-2005 | SY2005-2006 | ||
| Incentive Schools | NA | 61 | 59 |
| Targeted Assistance | 1 | 21 | 12 |
| Schools In Need of Improvement | 2 | 51 | 376 |
| Schools In Need of Corrective Action | 3 | 8 | 31 |
| Schools In Need of Restructuring – Year 1 | 4 | 8 | 6 |
| Schools In Need of Restructuring – Year 2 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| Total Schools | ------ | 149 | 1517 |
Under NCLB, schools that do not achieve AYP for two or more consecutive years are subject to progressive consequences. When a school is first classified as “in need of improvement,” parents must be offered the choice to transfer their child to a higher performing school (i.e., a school not in need of improvement). If the school does not achieve AYP for a third consecutive year, parents can request “supplemental (after school) services”.
During SY 2004-2005, seventy-four schools were classified as “in need of improvement – 35 elementary schools and 39 secondary schools.8 As required under NCLB, the District offered parents the option to transfer to a higher performing school where options were available – e.g., elementary schools. Where transfer options were not available – middle, junior high, and senior high schools – parents were encouraged to take advantage of the supplemental educational services that were made available.
To provide the transfer option, letters are sent to the parents of all students enrolled in schools that do not achieve AYP for two or more years. For this purpose, these schools are called “sending schools.” Conversely, where available, the higher performing schools are called “receiving schools.” Receiving schools are defined as schools that achieved AYP for all subgroups and are not subject to sanctions based on NCLB – i.e., are not classified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
| 2004-2005 | 2005-2006 | |||
| Number of Sending Schools | Number of Receiving Schools | Number of Sending Schools |
Number of Receiving Schools |
|
| Elementary Schools | 30 | 31 | 41 | 35 |
| Special Education Centers – Elementary | 2 | * | 2 | * |
| K-8 Centers (Elementary) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| K-8 Centers (Secondary) | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Middle and Junior High Schools | 18 | 0 | 179 | 4 |
| High Schools | 13 | 0 | 13 | 0 |
| Special Education Centers – Secondary | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Total | 74 | 31 | 84 | 39 |
* The receiving elementary schools include programs for autistic, emotional disturbance, mental retardation, visual, communication, and hearing impairments, and transition programs (see Appendix C).
The sending and receiving school list for SY2005-2006 is provided in Appendix C. This information in summarized in Table 5. As can be seen, the number of sending schools increased from 74 to 84. This increase reflects the requirement that a school must achieve AYP for two consecutive years before it is taken off the “school improvement” list. In addition, eleven new elementary schools failed to achieve AYP for a second consecutive year and, therefore, were classified as “in need of improvement” (and a “sending” school).
It should be noted that transfer options became available at the secondary level for the first time for SY2005-2006. Specifically, in 2004-2005 no receiving school options were available at the middle or junior high school level. In 2005-2006 four schools will serve as receiving schools – Takoma EC, Hardy MS, Deal JHS, and Marshall EC.
60 schools were classified as “in need of improvement” in SY2004-2005 (and had more than 40 students enrolled in the tested grades in spring 2005).10
Of these, 14 schools achieved AYP in both subject areas in spring 2005.
Another 10 schools achieved AYP in one subject in spring 2005 (see Table 6a).
| Schools In Need of Improvement in SY2004-2005 |
Made AYP in Spring 2005 |
||
| Both Subjects | One Subject | ||
| Reading Only | 14 | 5 | ------ |
| Mathematics Only | 3 | 2 | ------ |
| Reading and Mathematics | 43 | 7 | 10 |
| Total | 60 | 14 | 10 |
28 elementary schools were classified as "in need of improvement" in SY2004-2005 (and had more than 40 students enrolled in the tested grades in spring 2005).
10 achieved AYP in both subject areas in spring 2005.
Another 6 elementary schools achieved AYP in one subject (see Table 6b)
| Schools In Need of Improvement in SY2004-2005 |
Made AYP in Spring 2005 |
||
| Both Subjects | One Subject | ||
| Reading Only | 12 | 5 | ------ |
| Mathematics Only | 1 | 1 | ------ |
| Reading and Mathematics | 15 | 4 | 6 |
| Total (Elementary) | 28 | 10 | 6 |
32 secondary schools were classified as "in need of improvement" in SY2004-2005 (and had more than 40 students enrolled in the tested grades in spring 2005).
Of these, 4 achieved AYP in both subject areas in spring 2005.
Another 4 secondary schools achieve AYP in one subject (see Table 6c).
| Schools In Need of Improvement in SY2004-2005 |
Made AYP in Spring 2005 |
||
| Both Subjects | One Subject | ||
| Reading Only | 2 | 0 | ------ |
| Mathematics Only | 2 | 1 | ------ |
| Reading and Mathematics | 28 | 3 | 4 |
| Total (Secondary) | 32 | 4 | 4 |
1. Under NCLB, schools and districts that do not achieve AYP for three consecutive years are classified as “in need of improvement – year 2.”
2. Wilkinson ES, Aiton ES, and Noyes ES did not achieve AYP only because they did not meet the NCLB daily attendance goal.
3. NCLB attendance requirement applies only to elementary, middle, and junior high schools. Five k-8 centers are also included.
4. Gaps are defined as the differences between the (proficiency) percentages of the two subgroups.
5. The State Accountability Plan defines “proficient” as a score that is at or above the 40th percentile. This definition applies to all grades and subject areas. A student who scores at the 40th percentile, scores higher than approximately 40 percent of the students in the nation.
6. Two schools are classified as in need of improvement only because of attendance.
7. In cases where sufficient data were not available (i.e., less than 40 students), the accountability status remained the same as SY2004-2005.
8. The 2004-2005 classification was based on the previous State Accountability Plan.
9. This decrease resulted from the closure of Evans MS.
10. Overall, 74 schools were classified as “in need of improvement.” However, only 60 of these schools had 40 or more students enrolled for a full academic year in SY2004-2005.
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcpswatch.com
Web site copyright ©1997-2003, DCWatch
