AYP increases after Utah's appeals

In attempts to crack down on inappropriate appeal practices under Utah's No Child Left Behind, school districts were required to take a second look at schools that were given good marks due to processes that are not allowed under state rules.

But according to an updated report released Thursday following a re-examination, even more schools are making adequate yearly progress — regardless of what should have been some significant appeal reversals

No Child Left Behind aims to have all students reading and doing math proficiently by 2014.

States issue reports measuring adequate yearly progress, or AYP, toward the goal. Every student group, based on race, income, disability and limited English skills, has to make progress on tests or the school fails.

Last fall State Office of Education reports indicated that 28 percent of Utah schools failed to make AYP and 61 schools made it through the appeals process — something that can come into play due to calculation errors or extreme circumstances affecting test-taking.

But in a handful of districts some of those granted appeals were based on the result of three-year averaging — averaging test scores over three years in cases where districts were uncertain of a school's AYP.

For example, Davis School District granted appeals to seven schools based on three-year averaging. The schools had experienced huge shifts in their student populations from one year to another. Granite later granted 25 additional appeals based on the practice.

State leaders had said earlier this winter the practice was allowed, but U.S. Department of Education officials later indicated that since the provision was not in Utah's NCLB workbook, it was against the rules.

So districts had to go back and re-examine those appeals, making sure three-year averaging was not used as a basis for permitting an appeal.

But instead of fewer schools making the grade, the new report indicates a 2 percent increase in those passing AYP over what was originally reported.

That has some education leaders scratching their heads.

But state associate superintendent Judy Park said the second examination was not just about turning around marks on schools using the prohibited practice.

"It wasn't a matter of 'everyone who appealed through three-year averaging, take it off,"' said Park. "The part that you don't know is that maybe initially they appealed a school for three-year averaging but in that process determined there was an error in the data and so an appeal for that school was still appropriate, even for a different reason."