School achievement at the elementary and secondary level is crucial for children's future success in higher education and the workplace. All children deserve an education that provides them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, a federally mandated education policy signed into law by President Bush, has filtered through our educational system with the promise of preparing disadvantaged students for academic achievement and countering educational inequities. NCLB requires that all states establish a timeline to ensure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward the goal that 100% of students overall and in all designated subgroups are proficient in language arts and math by 2014. If a school or school district has at least forty students in a particular subgroup (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Multiracial, Limited English Proficiency, Individualized Education Program, or Low Income), it is accountable for the progress of students in that subgroup toward 100% proficiency.
To demonstrate the local effects of NCLB and AYP, MCIC has compiled data that shows where the schools in the metropolitan Chicago region stand in the program. Maps of the six-county area, school achievement by district and Chicago show schools' overall achievement of AYP for the 2003-2004 school year, the most recent data available.
There are some clear geographic patterns: The majority of schools not making AYP are in Chicago, most of which are located on the South and West sides. Chicago schools represent 52% of non-performing AYP schools in the region, though they represent only 30% of the total number of reporting schools. However, it is important to note that there are schools not making AYP in each of the six counties in the metropolitan Chicago region.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) at Schools in the Metropolitan Chicago Region: Are Children Being Left Behind?
Contributing Organization(s): MCIC (Metro Chicago Information Center)
Author(s)/Creator(s): Melissa Kraus Schwarz
Publishing Date: 2005-09-01
Issue Areas: Children and Youth; Education and Literacy
Ownership/Rights Info: Please consult the copyright holder before using or repurposing this information.
File info: 3 pages; 77.05 KB file size
Access this research:
Comment & Review
Needs improvement.
Posted by: Research_Reviewer on Sun, 18 Jan 09 01:53:13 +0000
The research is very interesting , although, it is missing very vital statistics in its part. Some of which I will address below.
Much of the information written is in the form of definition rather than research. Beginning with the first paragraph, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and its goal toward students, there seems to be no statistics featuring today’s period. This information will be very helpful in learning the progress of the program as well as the progress of the students in the various schools.
What of the 60.6% of schools in the six-county area make AYP as of what period (date) ?
What % of the schools in Chicago are on the AYP program?
Whose responsibility is it for the AYP to work? - that of student’s guardians and the schools’ responsibility to ensure AYP and NCLB progress both the school and its students.
What is the most recent data available that shows the progress of the AYP in the Chicago county areas?
The period between 2001-2003 has not been mentioned. What has been done during that time and why the gap? As well, what recommendations would you implement for those schools which are not making the AYP effective?
On the second page of the report, you had stated that whites and Asians had the highest proficiency, although, the statistic is missing as in percentage wise. These students have shown proficiency in math and reading, but what about language arts?
Out of all the subgroups shown, which of them was the largest and how did it rank among the rest?
The statistic featuring Will and McHenry Counties having the lowest percentage of schools making the AYP, why was that the case? Was it because there were not enough teachers, lessons taught, or students?
On that second page, for each bullet point shown, it would be easier to show the information and statistic in a pie chart/graph. (visual communication)
Towards the end of the second page, you have in a way contradicted the whole argument regarding the AYP program. I would like to see the statistic showing the negative correlation between the subgroups and whether they make it within the AYP. I mean, the program is recent, such that it will take time to envelop and redefine itself with every statistic that it effects. There is a sentence which I will quote here, “almost all schools will have failed to make AYP” regarding to 2012. That is a harsh judgment and very negatively spoken. I mean, look at the progress made thus far, not the negative correlation. It takes time and effort to get to achieve something; it does not happen with a single handshake or a couple of months, years. It takes time and patience. To year 2012, there are six years left. Be patient and positive.
Votes: 3 | Average Rating: 4
Click to add your rating!
Click to add your rating!
Related Research
Explore related research listed in the same issue areas.
Related research:
- Found Technology: Players as Innovators in the Making of Machinima
- Out-of-School Time Policy Commentary #11: People, Places and Possibilities: Integrating Mentoring and After-School
- Out-of-School Time Policy Commentary #6: Participation during Out-of-School Time: Taking a Closer Look
Share and Share Alike
The golden rule at IssueLab ... share the knowledge, share the love!
