How Feasible is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? - Simulations of School AYP - Uniform Averaging and Safe Harbor under the No Child Left Behind Act

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dawugda

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandates adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward 100% proficiency by 2013-14. Using simulation analyses of Maine and Kentucky school performance data from the 1990s, the study evaluates how schools could have met AYP under “uniform averaging (rolling averages)” and “safe harbor” provisions. Results indicate both options minimally reduce the risk of widespread failure caused by overly high AYP targets across all student groups. Implications for NCLB accountability and ways to make AYP more feasible and fair are discussed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages16

Reading Time40 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB

Uniform Averaging option

Safe Harbor option

A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education. PDF file of this article available: This article has been retrieved times since April 7, 2004 Volume 12 Number 14 April 7, 2004 ISSN 1068-2341 How Feasible is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? Simulations of School AYP “Uniform Averaging” and “Safe Harbor” under the No Child Left Behind Act Jaekyung Lee SUNY at Buffalo Citation: Lee, J. ,(2004, April 7) . 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, 12 (14) . Retrieved [Date] from [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n14/](http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n14/) . Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that schools make“adequate yearly progress ” (AYP) towards the goal of having 100 percent of their students become proficient by year 2013-14. Through simulation analyses of Maine and Kentucky school performance data collected during the 1990s, this study investigates how feasible schools would have met the AYP targets if the mandate had been applied in the past with “uniform averaging (rolling averages)” and “safe harbor” options that have potential to help reduce the number of schools needing improvement or corrective action. Contrary to some expectations, the applications of both options would do little to reduce the risk of massive school failure due to unreasonably high AYP targets for all student groups. Implications of the results for the NCLB school accountability system and possible ways to make the current AYP more feasible and fair are discussed. The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), requires standards-based accountability for schools receiving Title I funds. One major component of this accountability policy is to report whether the schools are making “adequate yearly progress ” (AYP) based on performance targets set by their state (i.e. , 100% of students become proficient within 12 years from the baseline year) . Since the passage of the NCLB, much concern has been raised about the AYP mandates and their possible consequences for schools that repeatedly fail to meet their AYP target (Linn, 2003) . Previous studies pointed out that some critical problems with AYP-based school accountability policies foreshadow technical challenges that lie ahead (Hill, 1997; Kane & Staiger, 2002; Kim & Sunderman, 2004; La Marca, 2003; Lee, 2003; Lee & Coladarci, 2002; Linn & Haug, 2002; Thum, 2002) . While the studies raised technical issues such as reliability and validity with regard to AYP measures or pointed out policy implementation problems such as the lack of capacity and resources, the options available for schools to take advantage of under the NCLB have not been studied and discussed systematically. Specifically, there are two options available under the current NCLB legislation, that is,(1) uniform averaging (NCLB, 2001, Section 1111(b)(2)(J)) and (2) safe harbor (NCLB, 2001, Section 1111(b)(2)(I)), that might not only help improve the reliability or fairness of the AYP measure but also help save schools from failing to meet the AYP target. It remains to be examined whether and how those options might affect the feasibility of AYP that should be the most pressing issue for schools. First, the uniform averaging procedure is designed to address a reliability issue: Does AYP measure schools’ academic progress with sufficient consistency and

FAQs

What is the central goal of AYP required by the No Child Left Behind Act?

Schools must make adequate yearly progress toward the goal that 100% of students become proficient by 2013-14.

How do “uniform averaging (rolling averages)” and “safe harbor” affect AYP feasibility in this study?

Simulation findings show that applying both options would do little to reduce the risk of massive school failure driven by unreasonably high AYP targets for all student groups.

Why is the uniform averaging procedure introduced in the accountability context?

It is intended to address reliability by reducing fluctuation in AYP measures that can arise from comparing successive cohort groups, especially in small schools.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dawugda