September 4, 2008
State Superintendent Jack O'Connell Releases
2007-08 Accountability Progress Report
State Accountability Measure Shows Progress Toward Closing Achievement Gap
GLENDALE — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released California's 2007-08 Accountability Progress Report (APR), which provides results from the state accountability system: the Academic Performance Index (API), as well as the federal accountability system: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI).
"The state and federal accountability reports provide educators, parents, and our communities with important data about student progress in their schools. The results show that our schools are making real progress and that more students in California are meeting the challenge of higher expectations," O'Connell said.
"I'm particularly pleased that this year's API results show some narrowing of the achievement gap between students who are white or Asian and their peers who are African American, Hispanic, or learning the English language. Because the API gives schools more credit for improvement made by the lowest-achieving students, it encourages educators to focus on improving the achievement of students who struggle the most. As a result, the API indicates more clearly where the gaps are narrowing," he said.
"Our recent report on Standardized Testing and Reporting Program 2008 test results focused on the number of students who are proficient and above, the bar set by the federal AYP system. But regardless of the accountability instrument used, we know the achievement gap is still unacceptably wide, and we have a long way to go to reach our ambitious goal of all students becoming proficient in all of the subject areas we assess," O'Connell said.
Both the API and AYP are based upon statewide assessment results from the STAR Program and from the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).
The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with a statewide target of 800. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup's Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. These subgroups include ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities.
Fifty-three percent of schools in California made their API growth targets based on 2008 data, an increase of 8 percentage points from 2007. (See Table 1.) Thirty-six percent of all California schools are now at or above the target of 800, up 5 percentage points from the year before. (See Table 2.)
"I am very pleased to see that more of our schools are meeting their API growth targets," O'Connell said. "These gains are particularly impressive given that for the second year in a row, schools must make progress as well in closing the achievement gap in order to make their API targets.
"I applaud the hard work of our teachers, administrators, students, and parents that has led to this improvement in student achievement. Now it is critical for the future of so many of our students, and for the future of our state that we maintain this focus on closing the gap and helping all students meet their full potential."
The 2008 API report shows that African American students statewide increased their API this year by 14 points. Hispanic students increased by 17 points, while white students increased by 10 points and English-learner students increased by 14 points. (See Table 3.)
The percentage of schools that met their subgroup growth targets also increased by 10 percentage points when compared to last year, increasing from 66 percent in 2007 to 76 percent in 2008. While African American, Hispanic, and English-learner students outpaced their white counterparts in terms of improvement on the 2008 API, white students and Asian students overall have a significantly higher API, a major indicator of the achievement gap that exists in California schools. (See Table 4.)
The state API and federal AYP results are based on different collections of assessments and report progress in different ways. The state API is an index model that measures year-to-year improvement and provides incentives to educators to focus on students at all performance levels. Schools receive more API points for moving students up from of the lowest performance levels. In contrast, the federal AYP system focuses solely on whether or not students are scoring at the proficient level or above on state assessments. (See Table 7.)
"Both systems offer important annual snapshots of progress at our schools," O'Connell said. "The goal of universal proficiency is the same. However, I continue to believe that a model that measures growth is more reflective of what's really going on in our schools, and enables us to more effectively target resources to those schools most in need of improvement. For example, 157 of our schools more than doubled their API growth targets for two years in a row, yet still missed AYP in both those years. Clearly these schools are on the right track, but are still labeled as failing under our federal system." (See Table 6.)
In 2008, the AYP target for the percent of students expected to score at the proficient or above level on state assessments increased nearly 11 percentage points from 2007. (See Table 5 for schools and Table 9 for local educational agencies [LEAs]). The AYP targets will continue to rise each year to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Because of the increase in targets, fewer schools and LEAs made AYP in 2008. AYP results show that 52 percent of schools made AYP in 2008, a 15-percentage point decrease from 2007. The percent of LEAs making AYP fell from 54 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2008. (See Table 6 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)
Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous standards in the nation. LEAs, schools, and subgroups must meet annual objectives in both content areas.
Schools, school districts, and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years are subject to identification for PI. Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. For example, schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services (e.g., tutoring) to eligible students.
For the 2008-09 school year, 266 schools were newly identified for PI — just slightly more than were newly identified in 2007-08. One hundred and sixteen schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. (See Table 11.)
"I want to congratulate the schools that have exited Program Improvement for their sustained success in improving student achievement," O'Connell said. "These schools are the true success stories in our state. Their efforts should be commended and we should examine the strategies they are using to help improve teaching and learning for all students."
NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California LEAs include school districts and county offices of education. In 2008-09, 61 LEAs were newly identified for PI, 1 exited, leaving a total of 242 LEAs in PI. Fifty LEAs are new to Year 3 of PI and will face sanctions assigned by the State Board of Education. (See Table 12.)
Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. API, AYP, and PI reports will be updated in October 2008, and again in February 2009. All reports and data files are available through the APR Web page at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).
# # # #
Attachments
2007-08 Accountability Progress Report
These data are current as of September 2, 2008, and are subject to change as the California Department of Education processes appeals of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations and receives updates to the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program and California High School Exit Examination data files.
Statewide Accountability:
Academic Performance Index (API)
2008 Growth Results
Table 1
Percentage of Schools Meeting All API Growth Targets, 2002-2008
| School Type | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary | 60% | 82% | 46% | 68% | 58% | 51% | 59% |
| Middle | 38% | 69% | 55% | 67% | 44% | 35% | 46% |
| High | 29% | 67% | 50% | 68% | 36% | 27% | 37% |
| All Schools | 52% | 78% | 48% | 68% | 53% | 45% | 53% |
Note: Table excludes schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores.
Table 2
Percentage of Schools At or Above Target of 800 on Growth API Scores, 2002-2008
| School Type | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary | 23% | 26% | 27% | 32% | 35% | 36% | 41% |
| Middle | 16% | 14% | 18% | 21% | 24% | 25% | 29% |
| High | 6% | 7% | 8% | 12% | 14% | 15% | 17% |
| All Schools | 20% | 21% | 23% | 27% | 30% | 31% | 36% |
Note: Table excludes schools in the ASAM, special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores.
Table 3
API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2007-08
| Type | 2007 State Base API |
2008 State Growth API |
2007-08 Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statewide | 728 | 742 | 14 |
| African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) | 644 | 658 | 14 |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 697 | 708 | 11 |
| Asian | 852 | 866 | 14 |
| Filipino | 813 | 825 | 12 |
| Hispanic or Latino | 666 | 683 | 17 |
| Pacific Islander | 720 | 734 | 14 |
| White (not of Hispanic origin) | 806 | 816 | 10 |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 663 | 679 | 16 |
| English Learners | 647 | 661 | 14 |
| Students with Disabilities | 536 | 549 | 13 |
Table 4
Percentage of Schools Meeting API Growth Targets by Subgroup, 2007 and 2008
| Schoolwide and Subgroups | 2007 Number of Schools with Numerically Significant Subgroup |
2008 Number of Schools with Numerically Significant Subgroup |
2007 Number of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets |
2008 Number of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets |
2007 Percentage of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets |
2008 Percentage of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statewide | 7,499 | 7,513 | 4,954 | 5,693 | 66% | 76% |
| African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) | 1,077 | 1,006 | 542 | 600 | 50% | 60% |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 14 | 15 | 6 | 9 | 43% | 60% |
| Asian | 1,268 | 1,265 | 1,126 | 1,200 | 89% | 95% |
| Filipino | 245 | 247 | 178 | 205 | 73% | 83% |
| Hispanic or Latino | 5,845 | 5,905 | 3,298 | 3,964 | 56% | 67% |
| Pacific Islander | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 25% | 50% |
| White (not of Hispanic origin) | 4,508 | 4,399 | 3,594 | 3,761 | 80% | 85% |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 6,188 | 6,236 | 3,450 | 4,174 | 56% | 67% |
| English Learners | 4,206 | 4,256 | 2,401 | 2,718 | 57% | 64% |
| Students with Disabilities | 986 | 952 | 380 | 460 | 39% | 48% |
Note: Table excludes schools in the ASAM, special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores. The number of schools with numerically significant subgroups is used in these calculations. For example: 5,845 schools had a numerically significant number of Hispanic or Latino students in 2007. Of those schools, 56% (3,298) met the Hispanic or Latino subgroup growth target.
Federal Accountability:
2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Table 5
School Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2007 and 2008
| School Type | 2007 English- Language Arts |
2008 English- Language Arts |
2007 Mathematics |
2008 Mathematics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary and Middle Schools | 24.4% | 35.2% | 26.5% | 37.0% |
| High Schools | 22.3% | 33.4% | 20.9% | 32.2% |
Table 6
Percentage of All Schools and of Title I Schools Making AYP, 2007 and 2008
| School Type | 2007 All Schools |
2007 Title I- Funded Schools Only |
2008 All Schools |
2008 Title I-Funded Schools Only |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary Schools | 76% | 70% | 59% | 48% |
| Middle Schools | 44% | 33% | 34% | 25% |
| High Schools | 58% | 55% | 48% | 42% |
| All Schools | 67% | 62% | 52% | 44% |
| Total Number of Schools | 9,684 | 6,064 | 9,832 | 6,020* |
* This table excludes 21 schools that received Title I funds in 2007-08 but had incomplete or missing 2008 AYP data.
Note: In 2007, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2007-08 Consolidated Application, Part 1, that each local educational agency is responsible for completing annually.In 2008, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2007-08 Consolidated Application, Part 2, that each local educational agency is responsible for completing annually.
Table 7
Percentage of Schools Meeting 2008 State API Targets and/or 2008 Federal AYP Criteria
| School Type | Met All API Growth Targets and Made AYP | Met All API Growth Targets Only | Made AYP Only | Did Not Meet API Growth Targets or AYP Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary Schools | 41% | 17% | 16% | 26% |
| Middle Schools | 21% | 25% | 7% | 48% |
| High Schools | 24% | 13% | 27% | 36% |
| All Schools | 35% | 18% | 16% | 31% |
Note: "Made AYP" = Met all AYP criteria. Schools in the ASAM, special education schools, schools with fewer than 100 valid test scores, and other schools with missing API targets are excluded. "All API Growth Targets" include schoolwide and numerically significantly subgroup growth targets. Rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 8
Schools That Did Not Make AYP But Met All API Targets and
At Least Doubled API Schoolwide Targets for 2007 and 2008
| School Type | Number |
|---|---|
| Elementary Schools | 114 |
| Middle Schools | 38 |
| High Schools | 5 |
| All Schools | 157 |
Note: Schools in the ASAM, special education schools, schools with fewer than 100 valid test scores, schools with missing API targets, and schools with a 2008 Growth API of at least 800 are excluded.
Table 9
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2007 and 2008
| School Type | 2007 English- Language Arts |
2008 English- Language Arts |
2007 Mathematics |
2008 Mathematics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary School Districts | 24.4% | 35.2% | 26.5% | 37.0% |
| High School Districts | 22.3% | 33.4% | 20.9% | 32.2% |
| Unified School Districts, High School Districts, and County Offices of Education | 23.0% | 34.0% | 23.7% | 34.6% |
Note: LEA = local educational agency such as a school district or county office of education. High school districts included in the third row are only those with students in any of grades two through eight.
Table 10
Percentage of LEAs Meeting All Federal AYP Criteria, 2007 and 2008
| School Type | 2007 Percent Made AYP |
2008 Percent Made AYP |
|---|---|---|
| Elementary School Districts | 67% | 55% |
| Unified School Districts | 39% | 20% |
| High School Districts | 54% | 27% |
| County Offices of Education | 16% | 9% |
| All LEAs Making AYP | 54% | 39% |
| Total Number of LEAs | 1,032 | 1,027 |
Note: "Made AYP" = Met all AYP criteria. The total number of LEAs does not include single school districts or direct funded charter schools.
Federal Accountability:
2008-09 Program Improvement (PI)
Table 11
2008-09 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of Schools
| Year | New | Remain | Total | Exit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 266 * | 56 | 322 | 62 |
| Year 2 | 276 | 90 | 366 | 10 |
| Year 3 | 349 | 38 | 387 | 23 |
| Year 4 | 208 | 53 | 261 | 12 |
| Year 5 | 342 | 563** | 905 | 9 |
| Total | 1,441 | 800 | 2,241 | 116 |
* These schools were newly identified for PI in 2008-09.
** The federal No Child Left Behind Act does not allow for a PI designation beyond Year 5. The 563 schools remaining in Year 5 have been identified for PI for at least six years.
Table 12
2008-09 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of LEAs
| Year | New | Remain | Total | Exit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 61 * | 1 | 62 | 0 |
| Year 2 | 34 | 1 | 35 | 1 |
| Year 3 | 50 | 95 ** | 145 | 0 |
| Total | 145 | 97 | 242 | 1 |
* These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2008-09.
** These LEAs were assigned a corrective action by the State Board of Education in March 2008 and remain in PI. This number does not include North Sacramento Elementary and Del Paso Heights Elementary, two of four LEAs that merged to form a new LEA, Twin Rivers Unified, beginning with the 2008-09 school year.
2007-08 Accountability Progress
Reporting (APR) System:
Summary of Results
Background
- Since 2005, the California Department of Education (CDE) has reported accountability results under the Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) system umbrella. Through the APR Web page at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR), schools are able to seamlessly view their results under both the state and federal accountability systems.
- The 2007-08 APR system includes the:
- 2007 Base Academic Performance Index (API).
- 2008 Growth API.
- 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
- 2008-09 Program Improvement (PI).
- The 2007 Base API, was released in May 2008.
- The Base API represents a recalibration of the API system that occurs each spring. Also included with the 2007 Base API score are API growth targets for the school and for every numerically significant subgroup at the school, the school's statewide rank and its similar schools rank.
- Data reported today are current as of September 3, 2008 and are subject to change as appeals of AYP determinations are processed and approved and as data corrections are made with the testing contractor and provided to the California Department of Education. The API, AYP and PI reports have regularly scheduled updates in October 2008, February 2009, and July 2009.
APR System Results
- API and AYP results are reported for the school overall and for all student groups considered to be numerically significant. A numerically significant subgroup is 100 students or 50 students that make up 15% of the school's population. Information is reported for all major ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students (SED), English learners (ELs), and students with disabilities (SWD).
- API scores range between 200 and 1000 with a state target of 800 points. In addition to the API score for the school overall and for all numerically significant subgroups, the 2008 Growth API report also tells whether the API targets were met for the school and for each numerically significant subgroup.
- The federal AYP consists of four components: participation rate, percent proficient (also known as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs), the API, and the high school graduation rate.
- The federal PI report includes the Title I funding status for all schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state as well as information on whether the school or LEA has been identified for PI. If the school or LEA is in PI, the year of interventions (Year 1-5 for schools and Year 1-3 for LEAs) is also noted.
Key Differences Between the State and Federal Accountability Systems
- The state accountability system is an index model that measures improvement in student achievement from one year to the next. Under the API system, schools are given credit for improving the overall performance of their students. School growth targets are set based upon the starting point of the school and are re-set each year depending on the level of growth each school site shows.
- The federal AYP system is often referred to as a "status" model because it rewards schools for the percent of students the school has scoring at the proficient or above level on state assessments. No matter where a school began, all schools are expected to meet the same target.
Summary of 2008 Growth API Results
- The API is a composite score that combines information across grade levels and content areas to yield a single accountability metric for a school site.
- The API includes assessment results from the California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English-language arts (ELA), mathematics, history/social science and science, the norm-referenced test (currently the California Achievement Test/Sixth Edition or CAT/6) at grades three and seven, and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in grades ten through twelve. SWD who take the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) are also included in the API calculation.
- One key feature of the API system is that schools are rewarded more for focusing on students scoring at the lowest performance levels. For example, a student who moves from the far below basic level to the below basic level contributes 300 points toward the school's API score. A student who moves from the proficient level to the advanced level contributes 125 points toward the school's API score.
Meeting API Growth Targets
- In 2006, Superintendent O'Connell proposed, and the SBE adopted, new, more rigorous API growth targets for subgroups specifically designed to close the achievement gap. The first time subgroups were responsible for meeting these new growth targets was with the 2007 Growth API.
- The results listed in Table 1 show that the percent of schools making both their schoolwide API growth target and the growth targets for all their numerically significant subgroups is 53%, an increase of 8 percentage points over last year.
- Based on the 2008 data:
- 59% of elementary schools made their API targets up from 51% in 2007;
- 46% of middle schools made their API targets, up from 35% in 2007; and
- 37% of high schools made their API targets, up from 27% in 2007.
Schools At or Above the State Target of 800
- The SBE has established an API score of 800 points as the state target that all schools and student subgroups should strive to achieve.
- The percentage of schools overall meeting or exceeding this state target has increased each year over the past six years. In 2008, just over one-third of schools attained this target.
- Based on 2008 data, 41% of elementary schools, 29% of middle schools and 17% of high schools are now at or above the state target of 800. See Table 2.
The Achievement Gap
- Results from the 2008 Growth API show that achievement gaps between traditionally lower performing student groups and white students decreased.
- Statewide, the 2008 API results showed an increase of 14 points. When examining subgroup performance, results show that white students improved by 10 points; African American students by 14 points; Hispanic students by 17 points; SED students by 16 points; ELs by 14 points; and SWD by 13 points. See Table 3.
Summary of 2008 AYP Results
- Every LEA, school and subgroup in California is expected to achieve a 95% participation rate on ELA and mathematics state assessments used to calculate AYP each year.
- In addition, all LEAs, schools, and subgroups are expected to meet state targets for the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level. Beginning in 2008, these state targets increase annually by about 11 percentage points until 2013-14 when 100% of students are expected to be performing at or above the proficient level on state assessments in both ELA and mathematics.
- The participation rate and percent proficient calculations for elementary and middle schools are based on the CSTs and the CAPA in ELA and mathematics and on the CAHSEE and the CAPA for grade 10 students in ELA and mathematics for high schools. The API is an additional AYP indicator for all schools; the graduation rate is only applicable for schools with enrollment in grades nine through twelve.
- In 2008, 52 percent of all schools made all their AYP targets, a decrease of 15 percentage points from 2007 and likely due to the increased AYP percent proficient targets and the inability to offer flexibility to schools and LEAs that missed AYP only because of the performance of the SWD group. This flexibility (i.e. the 20% credit) was offered to schools and LEAs in ELA and mathematics in 2006 and in mathematics in 2007.
- The percentage of schools making their AYP targets differs by school type with 59% of elementary schools making their AYP targets; 34% of middle schools; and 48% of high schools.
- Schools receiving Title I funds meet their AYP targets at a lower rate than all schools, 44% versus 52%.
- In 2008, 39 percent of all LEAs made all their AYP targets, a decrease of 15 percentage points from 2007.
Summary of 2008-09 PI Results
- Schools are identified for PI if they miss AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) or for the same indicator (API or graduation rate) for two consecutive years. Once identified for PI a school advances to the next year each time it misses AYP. More information about how schools are identified for PI can be found on the Title I PI Status Determinations Web page at Title I PI Status Determinations - Adequate Yearly Progress.
- PI for schools is designed on a five-year timeline. Schools in Year 1 of PI must offer students an option to attend a non-PI school in the same LEA with paid transportation. Schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services (SES) to eligible students. Additional information about the intervention activities associated with each year of PI can be found on the Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement - Title I, Part A - Accountability.
- There were 6,020 schools that received federal Title I funds in 2007-08.
- Of those schools, 2,241 or 37.2% of those are in PI in the following years:
- Year 1 – 322.
- Year 2 – 366.
- Year 3 – 387.
- Year 4 – 261.
- Year 5 – 905.
- Over 260 schools are being identified for PI for the first time in 2008-09 after missing AYP in 2007 and 2008. In addition, 342 schools advanced to Year 5 of PI. See Table 11 for a full summary. For lists of schools in each year of PI, see the 2008-09 Program Improvement Status Report, located in the Statewide Summary Reports section, on the Title I Program Improvement Status Reports Web page at Title I Program Improvement Status Reports - Adequate Yearly Progress.
- Schools exit from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. In 2008, 116 schools exited from PI after making AYP in 2007 and 2008.
- An LEA (school district or county office of education) is identified for PI when, for each of two consecutive years, it misses AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) LEA-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup, and does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (grades two-five, grades six-eight, and grade ten), or does not make AYP on the same indicator (API or graduation rate) LEA-wide.
- PI for LEAs is on a three-year timeline. Information about the requirements of each PI year can be found on the Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement - Title I, Part A - Accountability.
- In 2007-08, 931 LEAs received federal Title I funds.
- Of those LEAs, 242 or 26.0% were identified for PI for the 2008-09 school year in the following years:
- Year 1 – 62.
- Year 2 – 35.
- Year 3 – 145.
- Of the 62 LEAs in Year 1 of PI, 61 of them were first identified for PI in 2008-09. See Table 12. For lists of LEAs in each year of PI, see the 2008-09 Program Improvement Status Report, located in the Statewide Summary Reports section, on the Title I Program Improvement Status Reports Web page at Title I Program Improvement Status Reports - Adequate Yearly Progress.
- Fifty of the previous fifty-two Year 2 PI LEAs advance to Year 3 in 2008-09 and will face action by the SBE. In March 2008, the SBE required all PI Year 3 LEAs to adopt and fully implement a new curriculum. Some of the Year 3 LEAs were also required to contract with a District Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) to assist them in their improvement efforts.
- One LEA exited from PI after making AYP for in 2007 and 2008.
- A database of all 2007-08 Title I schools and LEAs along with their PI status (in PI/not in PI) and their PI Year (1 through 5 for schools and 1 through 3 for LEAs) can be found on the Title I Program Improvement Status Data Files Web page at Title I Program Improvement Status Data Files - Adequate Yearly Progress.
- In addition, a database of schools and LEAs at risk for being identified for PI in 2009-10 will be available soon on the Title I Program Improvement Status Data Files Web page listed above. Schools and LEAs at risk for PI identification missed AYP in 2008 for the first time.
