34 CFR 200.13 - Adequate yearly progress in general.
(a) Each State must demonstrate in its State plan what constitutes AYP of the State and of all public schools and LEAs in the State -
(1) Toward enabling all public school students to meet the State's student academic achievement standards; while
(2) Working toward the goal of narrowing the achievement gaps in the State, its LEAs, and its public schools.
(b) A State must define adequate yearly progress, in accordance with §§ 200.14 through 200.20, in a manner that -
(1) Applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public school students in the State, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Is statistically valid and reliable;
(3) Results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students;
(4) Measures the progress of all public schools, LEAs, and the State based primarily on the State's academic assessment system under § 200.2;
(5) Measures progress separately for reading/language arts and for mathematics;
(6) Is the same for all public schools and LEAs in the State; and
(i) All public school students.
(ii) Students in each of the following subgroups:
(A) Economically disadvantaged students.
(B) Students from major racial and ethnic groups.
(C) Students with disabilities, as defined in section 9101(5) of the ESEA.
(D) Students with limited English proficiency, as defined in section 9101(25) of the ESEA.
(1) In calculating AYP for schools, LEAs, and the State, a State must, consistent with § 200.7(a), include the scores of all students with disabilities.
(2) A State may include the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities based on the alternate academic achievement standards described in § 200.1(d), provided that the number of those scores at the LEA and at the State levels, separately, does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics.
(3) A State may not request from the Secretary an exception permitting it to exceed the cap on proficient and advanced scores based on alternate academic achievement standards under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(i) A State may grant an exception to an LEA permitting it to exceed the 1.0 percent cap on proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate academic achievement standards described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section only if -
(A) The LEA demonstrates that the incidence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the combined grades assessed;
(B) The LEA explains why the incidence of such students exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the combined grades assessed, such as school, community, or health programs in the LEA that have drawn large numbers of families of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, or that the LEA has such a small overall student population that it would take only a few students with such disabilities to exceed the 1.0 percent cap; and
(C) The LEA documents that it is implementing the State's guidelines under § 200.1(f).
(ii) The State must review regularly whether an LEA's exception to the 1.0 percent cap is still warranted.
(5) In calculating AYP, if the percentage of proficient and advanced scores based on alternate academic achievement standards under § 200.1(d) exceeds the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section at the State or LEA level, the State must do the following:
(i) Consistent with § 200.7(a), include all scores based on alternate academic achievement standards.
(ii) Count as non-proficient the proficient and advanced scores that exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) Determine which proficient and advanced scores to count as non-proficient in schools and LEAs responsible for students who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards.
(iv) Include non-proficient scores that exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section in each applicable subgroup at the school, LEA, and State level.
(v) Ensure that parents of a child who is assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards are informed of the actual academic achievement levels of their child.
(d) The State must establish a way to hold accountable schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's academic assessment system (e.g., K-2 schools), although the State is not required to administer a formal assessment to meet this requirement.
- 25 CFR 30.106 — How Does a Tribal Governing Body or School Board Propose an Alternative Definition of AYP?
- 34 CFR 200.41 — School Improvement Plan.
- 34 CFR 200.16 — Starting Points.
- 34 CFR 200.11 — Participation in NAEP.
- 34 CFR 200.43 — Restructuring.
- 34 CFR 200.42 — Corrective Action.
- 34 CFR 200.15 — Timeline.
- 34 CFR 200.18 — Annual Measurable Objectives.
- 34 CFR 200.52 — LEA Improvement.
- 34 CFR 200.12 — Single Statewide Accountability System.
- 34 CFR 200.53 — LEA Corrective Action.
- 34 CFR 200.21 — Adequate Yearly Progress of a State.
- 34 CFR 200.20 — Making Adequate Yearly Progress.
- 34 CFR 200.50 — SEA Review of LEA Progress.
- 34 CFR 200.19 — Other Academic Indicators.
- 34 CFR 200.7 — Disaggregation of Data.
- 34 CFR 200.26 — Core Elements of a Schoolwide Program.
- 34 CFR 200.32 — Identification for School Improvement.