Bowling Green City Schools Meet No Child Left Behind Goals

Bowling Green City School District met 21 of 21 target goals required to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This is the third consecutive year the district has met 100% of goals which are guided by the federal No Child Left Behind requirements.

Results for individual schools within the district state that Bowling Green Junior High met 22 of 22 target goals, Dishman-McGinnis met 12 of 12, T. C. Cherry met 10 of 10, Potter Gray met 8 of 8, and W. R. McNeill met 7 of 7. Bowling Green High School met 17 of 19 scoring just below the goal among African Americans in math proficiency and Students with Disability in reading proficiency. Parker-Bennett-Curry met 13 of 15 goals, missing goals in categories of reading among all students, and reading among students participating in the free and reduced lunch program.

The No Child Left Behind requirements are set-up on a pass or fail system. A school or district meeting less than 100% of goals is considered to have not met their Adequate Yearly Progress, but not meeting this mark does not mean that the school is failing to educate children.

Bowling Green City Schools understands and accepts the rules and guidelines among the No Child Left Behind accountability system, but is proud of the accomplishments of the district as well as each of the seven schools. Bowling Green City Schools will continue to find ways to meet the needs of all students of the district through the best possible services and educational practices.

Initiatives are currently in place to continue to strive for proficiency in reading and math in all schools. Bowling Green City Schools believe that early intervention is the key to preventing students from falling behind. The district will continue to provide scientific, research-based practices to guide instruction in all schools and at all levels, pre-
Kindergarten through the 12th grade, and provide teachers with high-quality professional development on literacy skills, reading coaching, and mathematics instruction.

Additional Notes:

• As a state, Kentucky met 19 of 25 (76%) of target goals.

• Only 80 districts (45.5%) and 766 schools in the state met 100% of AYP.

• Only 7 school districts in the state had 20 or more goals to meet. Bowling Green City School District was the only district with more than 20 goals to make 100% of target goals.

• No individual school had more goals to meet than Bowling Green Junior High School with 22. BGJHS met and surpassed all goals.

• Bowling Green City School District’s measurable subgroups, which determine the amount of goals accountable (Maximum of 25), were All Students, White, African-American, Hispanic, Free/Reduced Lunch and Students With Disability. Subgroups not counted were Asian and Limited English Proficiency.

• As a district, last spring BGISD total enrollment equaled 3,522 and was made up by 64.39% Caucasian, 22.14% African American, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian and 2.2% of other ethnicities. 54% of all students participated in free and reduced lunch, and 12.8% of the district was considered to be Limited English Proficient. Explanations of the No Child Left Behind Initiative:

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was implemented in 2002 and requires states to provide information on schools and districts progress to proficiency by 2014. Each state uses its own standards and assessments to make the annual determinations.

• In Kentucky, those measures are based mostly on Kentucky Core Content Tests, items in reading and math. The goal for Kentucky is that all students in all schools score at proficient levels in mathematics and reading by the year 2014.

• Proficiency is defined as an understanding of the content at levels high enough to apply the knowledge to daily life. In order to make this progress, there is a minimum yearly improvement or adequate yearly progress (AYP) required by each and every school.

• AYP is measured by the percentage growth in proficiency for reading and math, assessing improvement in an “other academic indicator,” (i.e. meeting mid-point goal in CATS assessment, and improvement on graduation rates) and testing at least 95% of enrolled students in selected accountable grades.

• The progression to the proficiency goal is divided into annual objectives (Annual Measurable Objective or AMO) including two, three-year plateaus. For the 2004-2005 year, the reading and math goals rose an average of nine points. The reading and math goals will remain at the 2004-2005 levels through 2006-2007 and rise again in 2007-2008.

• Schools and Districts funded by Title I, a federal program which provides funds to ensure that disadvantaged children receive opportunities for high-quality education services, will be subject for federal consequences if they do not make AYP in the same content area in any subgroup for two or more consecutive years. All Title I schools not achieving AYP are considered “No Child Left Behind Improvement Schools,” and consequences for these schools are
divided into Tiers which become more severe as the goals in these schools are consecutively not met.

• Goals (maximum of 25) for NCLB schools are determined by the sizes of the total population and subpopulations in each school and district. These subpopulations may only be reported if it meets a minimum group size of 10 students per grade (where NCLB-required assessments are administered) AND where there are at least 60 students in those grades combined, OR the subpopulation makes up at least 15% of the total student enrollment. For districts that have subgroups which cannot be counted, they have fewer goals to meet.

• Goals are considered met by the school if it reaches its Annual Measurable Objective in Reading and Math, has at least a 95% Participation Rate, and meets the Other Academic Indicator for each of the eight subgroups (All Students, White/Non-Hispanic, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Limited English Proficiency, Free/Reduced Lunch, and With Disability).

• The Wellstone Amendment of the No Child Left Behind Act affected 2006 assessment results. With the Wellstone Amendment in place, NCLB reported scores from 2006 as averages from 2005 and 2006, but the total numbers of participants for the two years were added, meaning more subgroups were formed based on population/participation numbers.

• Comparisons of 2005 data to 2006 should be made with caution!

• An explanation of why Kentucky implemented the Wellstone Amendment by Lisa Gross, KDE: "Since Kentucky used the augmented NRT (norm-referenced test) assessments for the first time in 2006, there is only one year of data available for the grade levels tested. Because of the lack of further years' data, staff at the Kentucky Department of Education were concerned about the stability of that
NRT data and asked the U.S. Department of Education to provide the state with the flexibility offered under the Wellstone Amendment. The results of the augmented NRT will be reported to schools and districts, so that they may use the data for diagnostic purposes."