The NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act is the comprehensive education reform law that was passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of Congress in 2001.  The NCLB AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) approach puts pressure upon schools and school districts that used to be able to get by with highlighting their above-average students and not mentioning their below-average students. 

Many “education establishment” officials have continued a well-orchestrated “shoot-the-messenger” campaign to attack the NCLB Act.  The October 10, 2006 Rocky Mountain News article ("School officials object to feds' grading system; Under No Child Left Behind Act, 100% of goals must be met") is an example.  Some superintendents and school board members imply that if districts as “wonderful” as theirs do not pass AYP, then surely there must be something wrong with the AYP measurement.  Of course, that is nonsense!  ICAN would rather have those school officials focus upon providing more help for the children who have been left behind.

The AYP subgroups (which in Colorado must have at least 30 students to be applicable) cover gender, race/ethnicity (White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and Native American), English language learner (ELL), economically disadvantaged students (FRM), and students with disabilities (IEP).

The Colorado AYP "proficiency" targets (which include partially proficient, proficient, and advanced CSAP scores as percentage of total, which also includes unsatisfactory) for 2003 and 2004 were set at the lowest 20th percentile for each of the elementary, middle, and high school groups and districts as a whole in 2002.  The targets were raised in 2005 and 2008 and will be raised again in 2011 and 2014.

At its September 27, 2007 meeting, the Littleton Public Schools (LPS) Board of Education (BoE) reviewed some preliminary information [PDF 186KB] about AYP results for 2006-07 as reported in the two-page excerpt [PDF 108KB] of the BoE draft minutes for that meeting.

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) in its October 9, 2007 four-page news release [PDF 40KB] reported that 57% of districts in Colorado made AYP in 2006-07 compared to 60% in 2005-06 and that 90% of districts met at least 90% of their targets in 2006-07.  Schools and districts can make AYP without meeting 100% of targets via the appeals process.  The CDE website as of 10/9/07 shows that LPS as a district met 130 of 135 (96.30%) of the targets in 2006-07, which was the tenth-highest percentage (was highest in 2005-06) of targets met for the 49 districts with more than 80 targets.  LPS also had the second-highest (was highest in 2005-06) percentage of targets met for the 15 districts in the Denver metro area.  There were 102 of the 178 districts that met 100% of their targets (all 102 had no more than 80 targets). 

ICAN was confident in 2006 that the district as a whole would be able to meet AYP if the higher-level school officials continued maintaining an objective, positive, “can do” attitude that was essential for the excellent performance improvement in 2005-06.  However, the 2006-07 results were noticeably less; e.g., LPS district total met 96% (130 of 135) of AYP targets applicable after having met 99% (132 of 134) in 2005-06 (according to the CDE website as of 10/9/07):

•  Hopkins ES met 90% (18 of 20) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Reading; missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Heritage HS met 96% (22 of 23) of AYP targets applicable (met IEP Math after appeal; made AYP).
•  Littleton HS met 86% (25 of 29) of AYP targets applicable (missed FRM and IEP Reading; missed FRM and IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  All other LPS schools met 100% of AYP targets applicable and made AYP.
•  Elementary schools subtotal met 98% (47 of 48) of AYP targets applicable (met IEP Reading after appeal; made AYP).
•  Middle schools subtotal met 100% (48 of 48) of AYP targets applicable (met IEP Reading after Safe Harbor credit; met IEP Math after Safe Harbor credit; made AYP).
•  High schools subtotal met 90% (35 of 39) of AYP targets applicable (met ELL Reading after Safe Harbor credit; missed IEP Reading; missed ELL, FRM, and IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  LPS district total met 96% (130 of 135) of AYP targets applicable; did not make AYP (because the high-school level did not make AYP).

The Colorado Department of Education in its October 1, 2008 nine-page news release [PDF 43KB] reported that 42% of districts in Colorado made AYP in 2007-08 and that 75% of districts met at least 90% of their targets in 2007-08.  Schools and districts can make AYP without meeting 100% of targets via the appeals process.  The CDE website as of 10/1/08 shows that LPS as a district met 128 of 141 (90.78%) of the targets in 2007-08, which was the fifth-highest percentage of targets met for the 15 districts with more than 140 targets.  LPS also had the third-highest percentage of targets met for the 15 districts in the Denver metro area.  There were 77 of the 178 districts that met 100% of their targets (all 77 had no more than 68 targets).  LPS ranked 131st of the 178 districts in terms of percentage of AYP targets met.

At its September 25, 2008 meeting, the LPS Board of Education reviewed some information [PDF 219KB] about AYP results for 2007-08 as reported in the two-page excerpt [PDF 32KB] of the BoE draft minutes for that meeting (and later supplemented by the CDE website as of November 13):

•  East ES met 97% (29 of 30) of AYP targets applicable (missed ELL Reading; did not make AYP).
•  Moody ES met 89% (16 of 18) of AYP targets applicable (missed FRM Reading; missed FRM Math; did not make AYP).
•  Euclid MS met 94% (30 of 32) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Reading; missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Goddard MS met 86% (31 of 36) of AYP targets applicable (met Hispanic, ELL, and FRM Reading after Safe Harbor credit; missed IEP Reading; missed IEP, Hispanic, ELL, and FRM Math; did not make AYP).
•  Newton MS met 97% (35 of 36) of AYP targets applicable (met IEP Reading after Safe Harbor credit; missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Powell MS met 93% (28 of 30) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Reading; missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Arapahoe HS met 96% (22 of 23) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Heritage HS met 100% (24 of 24) of AYP targets applicable (met IEP Math after Safe Harbor credit; made AYP).
•  Littleton HS met 76% (22 of 29) of AYP targets applicable (met FRM Reading after Safe Harbor credit; missed IEP, Hispanic, and ELL Reading; missed IEP, Hispanic, ELL, and FRM Math; did not make AYP).
•  All other LPS schools met 100% of AYP targets applicable and made AYP.
•  Elementary schools subtotal met 96% (46 of 48) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Reading; missed IEP Math; did not make AYP).
•  Middle schools subtotal met 93% (50 of 54) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP Reading; missed IEP, FRM, and ELL Math; did not make AYP).
•  High schools subtotal met 82% (32 of 39) of AYP targets applicable (missed IEP, Hispanic, ELL, and FRM Reading; missed IEP, Hispanic, and ELL Math; did not make AYP).
•  LPS district total met 91% (128 of 141) of AYP targets applicable; did not make AYP (because all three school levels did not make AYP).

There is a disappointing trend in LPS student academic achievement progress related to NCLB AYP results (as reported by citizen activist Sam Drury in his October 27, 2008 letter [PDF 54KB] to the Board):

•  2006 LPS targets met

  • Met 98.51% (132 of 134) targets.

  • Highest percentage of the 15 districts in the Denver metro area; ranked 111th of 178 Colorado districts.

  • Middle-school level did not make AYP.

•  2007 LPS targets met

  • Met 96.30% (130 of 135) targets.

  • Second-highest percentage of the 15 districts in the Denver metro area; ranked 123rd of 178 Colorado districts.

  • High-school level did not make AYP.

•  2008 LPS targets met

  • Met 90.78% (128 of 141) targets.

  • Third-highest percentage of the 15 districts in the Denver metro area; ranked 131st of 178 Colorado districts.

  • All three levels (elementary, middle, and high) did not make AYP.

•  Overall AYP trend

  • Decreasing percentage of targets met.

  • Declining rank within the districts in the Denver metro area and in Colorado.

  • Deteriorating probability within all grade-level groups to make AYP.

ICAN offers these comments and candid critique:

• CDE determination of LPS NCLB AYP results

  • CDE begins statewide public reporting of results for each district and school in early October.

  • The AYP standards are a function of CSAP performance.  Only those students with 12+ months are included.  The CSAP "proficiency" percentage is the ratio of the number of students with all-but-unsatisfactory scores to the total number of students.  That percentage is converted to the upper limit value (at the 95% confidence level for that subgroup), which is then compared to the AYP target percentage to determine whether the target was met or missed.  If the target was missed, then "safe harbor" and other provisions are available to determine whether AYP was made even though the target was missed.

  • The AYP targets are increased simultaneously at three-year intervals (2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014) for every subgroup of 30 or more students, each school as a whole, and each school district as a whole for each grade-level group (ES, MS, and HS).

  • The CDE reporting of "AYP results" is inflated in Colorado by the inclusion of CSAP "partially proficient" results and 95% upper confidence limits; e.g., the LPS 2007 mathematics actual CSAP "proficient plus advanced" result for high school students with disabilities was only 11%, whereas the 2007 reported "AYP result" was 60.25% and the published 2007 "AYP target" was 74.18%.

  • CDE has downgraded the 2008 LPS AYP Corrective Action Performance Level rating to only "Fair" (on CDE scale of High, Good, Fair, and Low) since LPS missed AYP for past five years, met less than 95% of AYP targets, and decreased the number of AYP targets met in past two years.

•  LPS responses to NCLB AYP results

  • The annual initial release of information by LPS officials (refer to the Board-approved excerpt [PDF 32KB] of the BoE draft minutes for the September 25, 2008 meeting) occurs immediately before CDE begins statewide public reporting of results for each district and school.

  • LPS officials in recent years have reduced their blatant "shoot-the-messenger" (divert attention to the bearer of "bad news") tactics about NCLB AYP. 

  • However, most Board questions and discussion at public meetings avoid unfavorable performance and actual causes.

  • Some Board members and other district officials have continued to "obfuscate" (hide or veil the meaning by intentional distortion) by highlighting small gains and bypassing candid discussion of the recent downward trend in LPS NCLB AYP results.

•  Possible cause(s) of recent downward trend in LPS NCLB AYP results

  • The 2008 increases in performance level benchmarks, which have been known for several years, did not cause LPS to miss AYP at any of the three grade levels (elementary, middle, and high).

    • Most of the actual 2008 results for the 13 unmet AYP targets applicable in 2008 were lower than 2007 results and/or 2007 targets.
    • All three levels (ES, MS, and HS) would not make AYP if 2008 results were compared to 2007 targets.

  • A likely cause of the recent downward trend is lack of ownership by LPS officials for results.

    • At the September 14, 2006 workshop the LPS Board of Education had received and discussed an "Improving Student Achievement" presentation [PDF 452KB], which included this District Achievement Goal: "90% of all students will be on or above grade level in reading, math, writing, and science by 2011.  The achievement gap in student performance will be cut in half by 2009."
    • Neither the Board of Education minutes of Board meetings nor the district website provide evidence that Board of Education members and the superintendent publicly declare their willingness to be held accountable for the District Achievement Goal results.
    • Another significant public indication of lack of ownership for results is that very few schools even mention the District Achievement Goal on their school websites.
    • The 1% overall gain in LPS CSAP proficiency during the past two years (2006 was 70%, and 2007 and 2008 were only 71%) was quite small compared to expectations of the District Achievement Goal and stated targets in the 2006-2009 school improvement plans (SIPs).
    • The three-year intervals between increases in AYP targets can give a temporary illusion of "success" for those who "rest on their laurels" too long rather than continuously improve enough to reach the next step in time.
    • The institutional inertia maintains the status quo and continues to prevent significant increase in student academic achievement.

  • Another possible cause of that trend is that actual root causes have not been identified.

    • LPS officials overemphasize public image and are very reluctant to identify problems.
    • Candid statements of district and school academic achievement trends usually are not offered.
    • There is little public visibility of "root cause" processes, which use data to indicate significant problems and successes, to assist in the identification and confirmation of probable causes, and to show results of corrective actions.
    • Actual root causes for missing the AYP targets have not been reported publicly.
    • Problem causes are not identified clearly.

  • Another likely cause is that LPS corrective-action plans are ineffective.

    • What confidence can there be for proposed “corrective actions” (which may be a list of activities) which are not linked to probable causes?
    • The LPS track record for effectiveness of school improvement plans is disappointing (e.g., Sam Drury August 8, 2008 seven-page letter [PDF 141KB]).
    • A lot depends upon the levels of understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to the SIPs in each of the buildings.
    • The LPS October 23, 2007 Performance Improvement Plan [PDF 141KB] was inadequate except for superficial compliance with state reporting requirements.
•  Total district performance

  • The district total decreased from meeting 96% (130 of 135) of AYP targets applicable in 2007 to meeting 91% (128 of 141) of AYP targets applicable in 2008.

  • Although the district total did not make AYP in 2008 and in 2007, it also would not have made AYP if the 2008 target levels were the same as for 2007!

  • Sam Drury's analysis of that 2007 data led to his concluding (December 19, 2007 e-mail [PDF 62KB]) "... that LPS in 2008 definitely will not make AYP on at least one level (HS), probably on two levels (HS and MS), and perhaps on all three levels (HS, MS, and ES).  The five subgroups that are the most problematic are (in order of apparent difficulty to meet the AYP targets for 2008) are Students with Disabilities, English Language Learners, Economically Disadvantaged, Hispanic, and African American."

  • The actual 2008 results for the 13 unmet AYP targets applicable in 2008 (Sam Drury's November 28, 2008 trend data update [PDF 56KB]) had six results lower than 2007 results and four more results lower than 2007 targets; only the remaining three results were higher than both 2007 results and 2007 targets.

•  Elementary schools performance

  • The district subtotal for elementary schools decreased from meeting 98% (47 of 48) of AYP targets applicable in 2007 to meeting 96% (46 of 48) of AYP targets applicable in 2008.

  • Although that subtotal did not make AYP in 2008 (and made AYP in 2007 after appeal), it also would not have made AYP if the 2008 target levels were the same as for 2007.

  • Neither East ES nor Moody ES caused the district subtotal to not make AYP.

•  Middle schools performance

  • The district subtotal for middle schools decreased from meeting 100% (48 of 48) of AYP targets applicable in 2007 to meeting 93% (50 of 54) of AYP targets applicable in 2008.

  • Although that subtotal did not make AYP in 2008 (and made AYP in 2007 after Safe Harbor credits), it also would not have made AYP if the 2008 target levels were the same as for 2007.

  • All middle schools except charter schools caused the district subtotal to not make AYP.

•  High schools performance

  • The district subtotal for high schools decreased from meeting 90% (35 of 39) of AYP targets applicable in 2007 to meeting 82% (32 of 39) of AYP targets applicable in 2008.

  • Although that subtotal did not make AYP in 2008 (and in 2007), it also would not have made AYP if the 2008 target levels were the same as for 2007.

  • Littleton HS was the major cause for the district subtotal to not make AYP.

According to CDE district AYP determinations [PDF 11KB], LPS and 56 other districts in Colorado had been placed on Program Improvement beginning with school year 2004-05.  Each of these districts was required to create a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) addressing the reason(s) the district did not make AYP.  Since LPS did not make AYP during school years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, the LPS PIP must be revised again in accordance with a Corrective Action Plan Rubric and then submitted to CDE for approval.  More information about these NCLB requirements is available on the CDE website pages for Program Improvement:

• Notification Requirements
• LEA Program Improvement Plan
• Implementation Timeline
• LEA Corrective Action
• Resources

Refer to the ICAN LPS NCLB AYP Archive page for more information.

Last modified: 12/31/2008 

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2008 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.