1. Politics, Policy and Improving Schools CRESST Annual Conference UCLA September, 2004 The Education Trust

2. Three Purposes Put students front and center; Describe evolution and central purposes of NCLB; Show you some encouraging data.

3. 1. Where we were in the run up to reauthorization

4. For two decades, not much progress in improving student achievement.

5. High School Achievement: Math and Science Source: NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.

6. HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT: READING AND WRITING

7. Achievement Up in Math, 13 Year-Olds, NAEP Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

8. Achievement Flat in Reading 13 Year-Olds, NAEP Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 107) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

9. What about different groups of students? During seventies and eighties, much progress in raising achievement among poor and minority students.

10. Gaps Narrow 1970-88 NAEP Reading 17 Year-Olds Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 107) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

11. Gaps Narrow 1973-86 NAEP Math Scores, 13 Year-Olds Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

12. Between 1988-90, that progress came to a halt…and gaps began to widen once again.

13. Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000 Gaps Narrow, Then Hold Steady or Widen: NAEP Math Scores, 17 Year-Olds 20 32

14. After 1988, Gaps Mostly Widen NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 107) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000 21 31

15. Gaps Narrow, Then Hold Steady or Widen: NAEP Math Scores, 13 Year-Olds Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000 25 32

16. Gaps Narrow, Then Mostly Widen NAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 107) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000 18 29

17. Where are we now?

18. Where Are We Now? 4th Grade Reading All Students 2003 Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables

19. By Race/Ethnicity 4th Grade Reading 2003 Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

20. By Family Income 4th Grade Reading 2003 Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

21. Where Are We Now? 8th Grade Math All Students 2003 Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables

22. By Race/Ethnicity 8th Grade Math 2003 Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

23. AT END OF HIGH SCHOOL?

24. African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)

25. 2. THE EVOLUTION AND CENTRAL PURPOSES OF NCLB

26. Historically, Three Key Roles: Looking out for students most likely to be left behind—poor and minority children, disabled students, language minorities; Providing extra resources to schools with concentrations of such children; Providing leadership to improve overall school quality.

27. Throughout seventies and eighties, resources provided through programs like Chapter 1 seemed to be working.

28. By the early ’90s, it was clear that the we needed a renewed focus on equity and achievement gaps.

29. The 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act: More flexibility, more accountability Federal government would no longer ask HOW the money was spent, but whether all students were learning

30. The 1994 reforms required: -Consistent state standards in reading and math -Full participation, with reasonable adaptations/accommodations for disabled and LEP students -States determined how much progress would be considered “adequate” for schools and districts -Disaggregated data

31. What happened? -Many states failed to implement law: -Assessments Not Developed -LEP students not included -Weak AYP with no focus on gap-closing -Disaggregated data unavailable in most states -Gaps kept growing

32. And we continued defining “quality” in education in the same old ways.

33. A few examples…

34. Abraham Lincoln Middle School Alachua County, Florida 31% White 59% African American 57% Low Income An “A” school under the Florida accountability model Source: Florida Department of Education, http://web.fldoe.org.

35. Achievement Gaps at Lincoln 2002-03 Reading Source: Florida Department of Education, http://web.fldoe.org AYP Target= 31%

36. Alexis I du Pont High School Red Clay, Delaware 49% White 24% African American 21% Latino 31% Low Income Named “One of America’s Best High Schools” by Newsweek Magazine Source: Delaware Department of Education, http://www.doe.state.de.us Newsweek Magazine, June 2, 2003

37. Achievement Gaps at du Pont 2003 English/Language Arts 10 th Grade AYP Target= 57% Source: Delaware Department of Education, http://www.doe.state.de.us

38. While the black, brown and poor kids in these schools were effectively hidden from public view, they were not hidden from Congress.

39. Prior to 2000 elections, democratic leadership determined to do something about this. Target: Accountability Systems

40. Then came the 2000 elections: A new president committed to “Texas style accountability”; Joined with key democratic leaders; Pressed republican members to come along. Bottom line: A very different politics.

41. 3. It’s easy to focus on problems created by the law

42. Three benefits Schools a lot more focused on the “hidden kids” than ever before; Creating a treasure trove of data validating how much schools matter; and, Laying the foundation for next- generation approaches, including value- added…

43. Dateline: North Carolina 18 June 2003

44. North Carolina Raising Achievement, Closing Gaps Grade 4 Reading 28 18 25 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, http://www.ncpublicschools.org

45. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Raising Achievement, Closing Gaps Grade 3 Math 40 35 19 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, http://www.ncpublicschools.org

46. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Raising Achievement, Closing Gaps Grade 3 Math 41 39 17 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, http://www.ncpublicschools.org

47. Education leaders see a clear link between the jump in test scores and the federal mandate to push schools to look past their overall score averages to the performance of their lowest-scoring students. “Schools are really buckling down under the pressure of No Child Left Behind.” - The News and Observer.

48. Tandra Batchelor-Mapp, principal of Glendale-Kenly Elementary School in Johnson County, said her school stepped up efforts to encourage parent participation while requiring more extra help and tutoring for struggling students. “No Child Left Behind was a major factor,” Batchelor-Mapp said. “We want our students and parents to be proud of our school.” - The News and Observer.

49. Black third-graders in Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools made a 24 point gain in math from last year and an 11 point gain in reading, more than double the progress reported for all students. Diane Villwock, testing director for Chapel Hill Carrboro schools, said schools focused heavily on students whose performance was below grade level, particularly minority students. - The News and Observer.

50. Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).www.schooldata.org

51. Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).www.schooldata.org

52. Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).www.schooldata.org

53. Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).www.schooldata.org Data are from 2002.

54. Also, more states, districts now moving toward… Benchmark assessments to inform instruction; Value added analyses to measure growth; and, Other new ways of using assessments for improvement.

55. The Education Trust For More Information... www.edtrust.org 202-293-1217