This paper has four purposes:
To examine what Congress said during the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and secondary Education Ad about what criteria states should use to determine which schools were making adequate yearly progress sufficient to get all students to meet state standards and which schools should be placed in school improvement.
To use two examples to explain ways in which this mandate has not been implemented (one state's definition of "adequate yearly progress" and another state's definition of the transitional measure of progress) and analyze the impact of the definitions on students in those states.
To respond to these examples with three simple suggested clarifications to current law that would continue to offer states the flexibility to address the unique concerns of their students, while ensuring that all children are provided with an education that allows them to meet challenging standards These are: