NCLB and Low- Performing Schools The Negative Effects of the Law on Minority Students in “Failing” Schools.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Accountability Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Presented.
Advertisements


The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act: An Exploration of the Standardized Test Scores of Special and General Education Student Populations Amber.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
No Child Left Behind The Federal Education Law and Science Education May, 2004.
Knowledge is Power Pitt County Schools Title I Workshop.
Coal City Unit District #1 Title I Parent Meeting.
Educational Policies Present Zachary Schrage.
1 Supplemental Educational Services Office of Elementary and Secondary Education June 2002.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
ESEA Reauthorization: NCLB and the Blueprint Based on information from: A Blueprint for Reform July 2010.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate.
AYP: Are You Perfect? By: Jalynn Speck, Linda Oller, and Jill Polsley.
PACT Tests Administration Guide. What is the PACT Test? Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test Standards-based accountability For curriculum and teaching.
Accountability and Assessment: From “A Nation at Risk”  NCLB  Race to the Top.
Kaitlin White Mark Sanders Megan Davenport Nicole Faulkner.
Education in America, Is the American Education System Leaving Children Behind?
ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.
High Stakes Testing EDU 330: Educational Psychology Daniel Moos.
Understanding and Using Standardized Tests
Power and Control at State and National Levels: Political Party Platforms and High- Stakes Testing Chapter 9 ©2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights.
Title I-A The “Basics” of the Basic Program Marcia Beckman, Director No Child Left Behind Programs Idaho State Department of Education September 15, 2008.
Building Relationships with Schools Rene’ Moore Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
The Impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on School Achievement and Accountability. Glenn Maleyko Wayne State University Detroit, MI October 17, 2011,
1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Implementing NCLB The National Education Association February 13, 2004 Gary Orfield, Professor of Education &
Standards The Achievement Gap The Debate Continues.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
No Child Left Behind Presented by: Daniel J. Herrera Based on information obtained at and Presented by: Daniel J. Herrera.
SAISD Principal’s Meeting September 17, 2003 Office of Research and Evaluation.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
Marjorie Hall Haley, PhD - GMU1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
The Do’s and Don’ts of High-Stakes Student Achievement Testing Andrew Porter Vanderbilt University August 2006.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Annual Student Performance Report September
No Child Left Behind Education Week
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Jill Daignault ED 613 Unit III Assignment.
No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind  NCLB Overview  Assessment and Accountability Requirements  Educator Quality.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
From the Board Room To the Classroom PDK Panel Discussion September 19, 2002.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
Building Relationships with Schools Rene’ Moore, Coordinator Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program.
The Importance of MSIS Data for Assessment Reporting and Accountability Office of Research & Statistics Mississippi Department of Education July 2004.
We have studied the progress in schools in the 20 th century. Accomplishments between 1900 and 1980? 1. EXPANSION OF SYSTEM OF SCHOOLING (K-12) 2. MOVE.
On the horizon: State Accountability Systems U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2002 Archived Information.
C&I 212 Dr. Brown. Federal Role in Education  Bill of Rights (10th Amendment)  Morrill Acts  Smith-Hughes Act (1917), George-Barden Act (1946)  GI.
1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
Neo-Conservative Ideas Berliner and Biddle ( ) Neo-conservative “centrist” thought won out in school reform. Main approaches to school reform: Get.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
US Government Mrs. Lacks ON THE ISSUES: EDUCATION.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY: PROMOTION AND GRADUATION TESTS BY ISABELLA BROWN Emory University Summer 2006.
Discussion of W-APT, ACCESS Testing, Adequate Yearly Progress and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
What is ESSA? On December 10, 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into federal law. This law is a reauthorization of the Elementary.
Ch. 9 Organizing and Paying for Schools
Adequate Progress Gina LaPlaca Grand Canyon University
Analysis of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
NCLB “No Child Left Behind”.
Ace it!SM Tutoring Teacher Training
Presentation transcript:

NCLB and Low- Performing Schools The Negative Effects of the Law on Minority Students in “Failing” Schools

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)  Test results from each school must meet the requirements of AYP as determined by NCLB  Schools unable to make AYP are labeled as “failing” and “in need of improvement”  Failure to meet requirements for 5 consecutive years can result in closure of a school

AYP and Mean Proficiency  Mean proficiency is the primary indicator for measuring performance  Schools labeled as “in need of improvement” begin with lower test scores  Prevents schools from showing improvements over time because they have not yet reached AYP

AYP and Subgroups  Schools with high-poverty levels and multiple subgroups are more likely to fail AYP (Kim & Sunderman 2005)  Schools can choose which students need to belong to a subgroup  LEP (Limited English Proficiency) subgroup  Inconsistent classification, sparse population, lack of stability, measurement quality, baseline scores

Characteristics of Low-Performing Schools Balfanz, Legters, Weber, and West (2007) – Balfanz, Legters, Weber, and West (2007) – 3 distinct characteristics: 3 distinct characteristics: 1. High schools that made AYP appear to be better resourced 1. High schools that made AYP appear to be better resourced 2. Size, those that make AYP tend to be smaller 2. Size, those that make AYP tend to be smaller 3. Location, those that make AYP tend to be in rural areas rather than central city high schools 3. Location, those that make AYP tend to be in rural areas rather than central city high schools Schools that face less pressure from NCLB are more likely to achieve AYP Schools that face less pressure from NCLB are more likely to achieve AYP

School Choice  “Failing” schools are required to provide school choice or supplemental services  Zhang and Cowen (2009) argue there are geographical inequalities that effect distribution of these services  Rural schools struggle because of geographical isolation

Teacher Preparation NCLB states that every student will be provided with “highly- qualified” teachers NCLB states that every student will be provided with “highly- qualified” teachers Failure to make AYP is largely blamed on teachers Failure to make AYP is largely blamed on teachers Teachers resort to “teaching to the test” Teachers resort to “teaching to the test”

Funding for Teacher Preparation  Gray (2005) states, “the Bush administration contends that the extra costs of meeting NCLB’s requirements are a state and local responsibility. Yet, the federal government is demanding 100% accountability in elementary and secondary education, while paying 10% of the bill” (96).

Teachers and Achievement When teachers focus on making connections with students and teaching what is culturally relevant, achievement occurs When teachers focus on making connections with students and teaching what is culturally relevant, achievement occurs NCLB causes teachers to feel pressured to focus their curriculum around the test because of the high-stakes NCLB causes teachers to feel pressured to focus their curriculum around the test because of the high-stakes

Administrators and Teachers Administrators Administrators Anderson, Canfield-Davis, and Gardiner (2008) studied the effects of NCLB on six principals from urban schools Anderson, Canfield-Davis, and Gardiner (2008) studied the effects of NCLB on six principals from urban schools 3 out of 6 avoided extracurricular activities because they had to meet NCLB expectations 3 out of 6 avoided extracurricular activities because they had to meet NCLB expectations Feel pressure to focus school goals on raising test scores and narrowing the curriculum Feel pressure to focus school goals on raising test scores and narrowing the curriculum Teachers Afolayan, Byrd-Blake, Fabunmi, Leander, and Pryor (2010) conducted qualitative and quantitative study on responses of teachers from an urban school district in Illinois Elementary school teachers felt more pressure from NCLB than secondary teachers