1. The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate Professor University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts- Amherst

2. No Child Left Behind The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Meant to affect every child, every school, and every teacher in the country Meredith Becker Marianne Currier Heather Goukler Jahmal Mosley John Provost

3. No Child Left Behind : The Four Pillars  Accountability  Flexibility  Options  Research

4. Accountability For achievement Achievement across the core content areas Achievement gaps will be eliminated 22 indicators of low performing schools… schools will be identified for improvement if they are not raising student achievement For quality of personnel Highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals

5. Flexibility With Funding and Programs Up to 50% of grants received for teaching improvement,innovation, technology, safe and drug free schools for use under other provisions Title I schools with poverty > 40% can use Title I funds for ALL students Consolidation of all ESEA administrative funds Experimental programs encouraged in selected districts and states

6. Options For Parents School choice to be offered to parents of children in schools identified for improvement (sifi) Choice must be created/funded by districts Supplemental services to be offered in the second year of school improvement Supplemental services offered to students with IEP’s in schools identified for improvement

7. Research Scientifically Based Research Rigorous systematic procedures to obtain reliable and valid data that is relevant Peer reviewed or approved by panel of experts through rigorous scientific review Program and Intervention design must be grounded in data

8. No Child Left Behind Act… High Expectations for All Students, All Schools, All Districts… NATIONWIDE

9. Goal 1 All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014 Student assessment results as primary indicator Measure adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward achieving the 12 year goal Separate measurable annual improvement objectives Performance targets for students in aggregate and for student subgroups

10. Goal 2 By 2013-2014 all students will be proficient in reading by the end of third grade Reading First replaces Reading Excellence Act Research based comprehensive reading instruction Competitive grant process Assessment of all K-3 students to determine who are at risk of reading failure AYP measured for all grade 3 students in the aggregate and in subgroups including students with limited English proficiency (LEP)

11. Goal 3 All limited English proficient (LEP) students will become proficient in English By 2002-2003, English proficiency of all LEP students will be assessed annually Every three years, districts receiving Title III funds must report % students making progress % who have achieved English proficiency % who have transitioned into non-LEP classrooms % meeting same academic standards expected of peers

12. Goal 4 By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers Professional or standard state license and bachelor’s degree New teachers Elementary – bachelor’s degree, rigorous teacher test Secondary – state certification, degree in teaching field, rigorous teacher test in field Paraprofessionals 2 years of higher education, associates degree or formal state-designed assessment

13. Goal 5 All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning Competitive Discretionary Grants 21 st Century Schools Partnerships in Character Education Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Grants Smaller Learning Communities

14. Goal 6 All students will graduate from high school Competency determination reflects proficiency Graduated diploma requirements An improvement standard for students alternately assessed

15. Difficulty attaining universal proficiency for specific student subgroups, for example severely and profoundly disabled students The use of Title I funds for supplemental services may deplete resources for school based programs Designation of some schools identified for improvement may result in unequal and inefficient distribution of school district resources Implementation Concerns

16. Based on district need to have all schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress requirements, will it benefit districts to consider equalizing the distribution of the special education population? Research Question

17. In order to analyze this question, the Special Education Leadership Training Project Study Group determined progress toward full competency made by all the elementary schools in Massachusetts Districts serving more than five thousand students. Based upon comparison of yearly Grade 3 Reading MCAS scores between 1998 and 2001, schools were rank ordered by improvement or regression from baseline. Methodology

18. Schools at or above the 95th percentile of achievement in this rank ordered list were identified as high performing schools. Schools between the 47.5 and 52.5 percentiles were considered to be part of the median group. Schools at or below the 5th percentile were assigned to the low performing school group. Methodology

19. To examine the effects of demographic balancing within a single school district this study reports data pertaining to a single urban Massachusetts school district with a number of schools in each of the three categories. Demographic information is summarized on the next two slides. Methodology

20. Massachusetts Urban Public School District

22. Percent SPED enrollment does not appear to influence a district’s student performance on MCAS. Students with disabilities represent a relatively small proportion of students at risk, so a policy of equalizing SPED enrollment across schools within districts is not likely to result in a more uniform distribution of student achievement scores among schools. Findings

23. The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate Professor University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts- Amherst