Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Implementing NCLB The National Education Association February 13, 2004 Gary Orfield, Professor of Education &

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations

Advertisements

Schoolwide Programs (SWP) NCLB Regional Meetings April 2010.
A Guided Tour of the 1% Exception Process From Documentation to Approval.
Title I & Title III Annual Parent Meeting
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
No Child Left Behind The Federal Education Law and Science Education May, 2004.
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
IMPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY’S SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS SUPERINTENDENTS’ WEBCAST MARCH 6, 2012 NCLB Waiver Flexibility 1.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
NCLB and Low- Performing Schools The Negative Effects of the Law on Minority Students in “Failing” Schools.
Pershing Pershing Annual Meeting Title I AYP/School Improvement.
Educational Services and Choices: Information for Parents Florida PIRC at USF (Parental Information and Resource Center)
Title I Schoolwide Providing the Tools for Change Presented by Education Service Center Region XI February 2008.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
ESEA Reauthorization: NCLB and the Blueprint Based on information from: A Blueprint for Reform July 2010.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County May 2011.
1 Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Process CDE Briefing for the Colorado State Board of Education March 5, 2008.
AYP: Are You Perfect? By: Jalynn Speck, Linda Oller, and Jill Polsley.
Overview of Title I Services. Purpose Overview of Title I Funding sources Expectations Parent Night Assessments Structure for grade level services.
Module 4 TED 356 Curriculum in Sec. Ed.. Module 4 Explain the current official federal and state standards, including professional and accrediting groups.
No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities Presentation for OSEP Staff March 20, 2003 Stephanie Lee Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
Nicolle Wilson Capella University. - Has over 4,000 students in the district - Has 5 elementary schools and 2 junior highs - Offers many different services.
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.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Overview of Title I Part A Farwell ISD. The Intent of Title I Part A The intent is to help all children to have the opportunity to obtain a high quality.
Daniel H. Holloway Senior at Old Dominion University Coordinator of Database Services Gloucester County Public Schools.
Supplemental Educational Services. Determining Per Student SES Rate Section 1116(e)(6): each SES student must get lesser of: a.District’s total Title.
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.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
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, PART A ESEA ROLLOUT SPRING 2013 Version Title I, Part A Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Fall District Test Coordinators Meeting Alexandria, LA November, 2005.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
No Child Left Behind Waivers: Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications By Jeremy Ayers and Isabel Owen with Glenda Partee and Theodora Chang.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Educate to Lead Workshop November 13, 2009 Dr. Thomas Stewart Qwaku & Associates.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
On the horizon: State Accountability Systems U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2002 Archived Information.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
WE ARE Gaston County Schools Title I Annual Parent Meeting Bessemer City Primary 9/16/13 1:00 & 5:45.
Neo-Conservative Ideas Berliner and Biddle ( ) Neo-conservative “centrist” thought won out in school reform. Main approaches to school reform: Get.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
What just happened and what’s next? Presenters: Steve Dibb, MDE Debra Landvik, MDE AYP 2011.
1 Leading the Next Generation of Education Reform in New York State New York State Education Department James A. Kadamus September 22, 2005.
American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS ADVISORY TEAM MEETING WELCOME Brenda B. Blackburn, Superintendent Berkeley County School District November 17, 2015, 5:30 pm.
RICHMOND COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMUNITY MEETING GLENN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL JANUARY 7, 2015 School System Flexibility Options.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Where Are We Now? ESSA signed into law December 10, 2015
Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities
What Parents Need to Know
What Parents Need to Know
Participation in State Assessments State and Federal Policy
What Parents Need to Know
Analysis of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
What Parents Need to Know
NCLB and Title I Schools
What Parents Need to Know
Presentation transcript:

Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Implementing NCLB The National Education Association February 13, 2004 Gary Orfield, Professor of Education & Social Policy The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University

Agenda  Purpose and Design of NCLB National Study  Goals of NCLB  Key Findings from Four Reports  Policy Recommendations  Discussion

Purpose of CRP’s Study on NCLB  Purpose of NCLB: “to close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” within 12 years  Purpose of CRP Study is to understand How the whole system works to implement NCLB How the law actually works at state & local levels How the law impacts minority children and schools

Study Design  Select states with quite different educational systems and policies but with large minority enrollments  AZ, CA, IL, NY, VA, GA  Two Urban Districts within Each State Except IL (only Chicago)  Qualitative Data Collection-Field Visits, Interviews, Document Collection  Quantitative Data Collection-Demographic and Achievement for All Schools, 6 States

Bush Administration’s Goals  NCLB Embodies 4 Principles: Flexibility More Choices for Economically Disadvantaged Families Accountability Focus on What Works  Key Question: What are the intended and unintended consequences?

( 1) Bush Administration and Federalism  Little deference to local priorities or local decision making  Little consideration of state capacity  Growing political resistance linked to lack of resources, state fiscal crisis, and unreasonable requirements

(2) NCLB and State Accountability  Federal requirements impose “one size fits all” accountability model on states  States layered the federal accountability requirements on top of pre-existing plans  NCLB complicates state accountability Dual system produces conflicting messages, and divergent definitions of proficiency AYP has disparate impact on minority schools Subgroup rules punish disadvantaged schools

School Ratings Are Confusing  Conflicting signals for schools Arizona, 289 schools identified as “needing improvement,” but met the state’s performance targets and earned either a “performing” or “highly performing” label. Virginia, 723 (40% of all schools) failed to make federal AYP goals while only 402 (22%) failed to meet state accreditation standards.

“Proficiency” Has No Common Meaning

AYP Has Disparate Impact on High Poverty, High Minority Schools

Subgroup Rules Punish Schools with Large Numbers of Minority, Low-Income, LEP, Spec. Ed. Students - CA

(3) More and Better Choices for Students in Low-Performing Schools?  Choice and SES implemented primarily in urban districts  Low participation rates  Ignores local district capacity to implement programs: high-poverty districts have limited seats in low-poverty schools with high achievement levels

Burden of implementing choice falls on urban districts District% Schools Within the District Offering Choice % Schools in State New York City65%27.1% NY’s Schools Chicago34%13.8% IL’s Schools Los Angeles13%7.4% CA’s Schools Richmond City50%3% VA’s Schools

Participation Rates in NCLB Transfers  In each of the ten districts fewer than 3% of eligible students requested to transfer to a different school.  NCLB transfer policy 1.9% of eligible students requested transfers in Chicago, and only 2.3% of eligible students requested transfers in New York. Parents whose transfer requests were approved often chose to keep their children in the neighborhood schools. in Fresno, only 62 of the 111 students (56%) whose transfer requests were approved actually moved out of their neighborhood school.

High Poverty Districts Don’t Have Lots of Low-Poverty Schools

(4) Supplemental Educational Services  Primarily minority students eligible  Low participation rates, but greater demand for SES than for NCLB transfer option  Fewer than 16% of eligible students requested and received services  Irony of SES: creates more bureaucracy and undermines push for “scientifically-based” education policies and interventions

Minority students are primarily eligible for SES

Yet There is Little Accountability and Evidence for Supp. Ed. Services  Supplemental Educational Services requirements impose administrative burdens on districts and schools  Without increase in resources  Diverts resources away from poorly performing schools  Does not adhere to “scientifically-based” research standards (111 times in statute)

Recommendations  Revise NCLB in collaboration with education professionals, recognizing the variation in conditions, and incorporating the best research on realistic time frames and rates of progress.  Revise subgroup accountability rules especially for LEP and disability categories & end double counting.

Recommendations  Encourage multiple models for measuring student learning and school accountability with an emphasis on progress.  Emphasize narrowing learning gaps for minority and poor students.

Recommendations  Choice program should be limited to schools that are not improving and should be only to better schools. Existing transfer policies, especially in desegregation plans should be given priority.  The supplemental educational services requirement should be suspended and replaced by experiments to determine whether and how this works. If it is resumed, it is resumed, it should be forward-funded rather than withheld from current year Title I budget.