1. 1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) December 2, 2005 California School Boards Association San Diego, CA

2. 2 NCLB Overview-Part 1  Annual state testing in language arts and mathematics, grades 3-8 plus one grade in high school. By 2007-08, science must be tested in one grade each in elementary, middle, and high school.  95% participation rates of each subgroup  Mandatory state NAEP participation (every two years in math and reading)  Adequate Yearly Progress, includes subgroups meeting minimum group size by race, disadvantaged, English language learners, and special education students  State flexibility, may use their own standards and tests, flexible minimum subgroup size, many different AYP variations have been approved

3. 3 NCLB Overview-Part 2  Sanctions  Failure to meet AYP for two years requires supplemental educational services such as tutoring or transfer to other district school  Failure a third year requires stronger corrective action such as removing staff, implementing new curriculum, outside experts, restructuring  A School is removed from a “needs improvement list” if it makes AYP for two consecutive years  Only Title 1 schools subject to sanctions  Political Atmosphere  States had responded slowly to earlier ESEA laws  NCLB had strong bipartisan support, Senate approved 87-10; House 381-41  Virtually no research conducted to determine feasibility of NCLB goals

4. 4 California’s NCLB Overview  AYP Criteria defined in August 2005 CDE NCLB Workbook  A school or LEA may need to meet 46 different criteria in order to make AYP.  Primary performance measure is the California Standards Test; API is an additional measure as well as the high school graduation rate.  California selected a path designed to identify the fewest number of schools and districts in need of improvement while minimizing changes to the current STAR accountability system.

5. 5 California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory English-Language Arts Source- CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

6. 6 California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory Mathematics Source- CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

7. 7 California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory Graduation Rate Source- CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

8. 8 California Makes Decisions to Minimize Schools in Need of Improvement  Minimum of 100 valid test scores for subgroups  Backloaded trajectory  Confidence Intervals (applies a 75% confidence interval to safe harbor provision).

9. 9 Critical Research Findings  State standards, tests, and achievement levels are not comparable  Teachers adjust their approach according to what is assessed  Scores are usually low on new state tests. As districts and teachers adjust instruction, scores improve, but eventually level off  Schools usually focus on the test more so than on the standards  What is not tested becomes less visible, social studies, the arts, etc.  Tests are not perfect and are oftentimes used improperly  Reliability decreases with fewer numbers of students  Classroom assessment and grading practices are uneven and often of low quality

10. 10 Tests Drive Teaching… Source- Herman and Golan CRESST Report 334 Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers and Learning— Another Look

11. 11 Tests Drive Instruction… Source- Herman and Golan CRESST Report 334 Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers and Learning— Another Look

12. 12 But, Tests Do Not Necessarily Increase Learning California Performance on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress Source-Education Trust-West Grade & SubjectCalifornia ranking-All 50 states+DC 4th Grade Math44 8th Grade Math44 4th Grade Reading48 8th Grade Reading49

13. 13 Despite 8 years of STAR & 4 Years of NCLB Long Term California NAEP Performance is Flat NAEP Mathematics Percent Proficient or Advanced 1998200220032005 Grade 4 Nation 2830 Grade 4 California 2021 Grade 8 Nation 30313029 Grade 8 California 21202221

14. 14 100% Proficiency is Unrealistic Goal 2005 California Standards Test Percent Students Proficient or Above Student Type 6th grade Reading 6th grade math 7th grade reading 7th grade math LowerAll students 22252826 Performing School ELL5136 Special needs 4244 Very High Performing School All students 83879189 ELL46852542 Special needs 42444741

15. 15 Other Measures Support NAEP Results

16. 16 Small or No Improvement

17. 17 ELL Performance is Flat in Reading

18. 18 ELL Performance in Math is Flat or Declining

19. 19 Special Needs Reading Performance

20. 20 Special Needs Mathematics Performance

21. 21 Other States and Districts Are Not on Target to Reach 100% Proficiency Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, 10th Grade Language Arts

22. 22 Other Important Things to Know  States are working with the U.S. Department of Education to delay NCLB consequences to schools  ESEA is scheduled for reauthorization in 2007

23. 23 What Your School District and Board Can Do  Focus On Teachers and Teaching

24. 24 What Else Your School District and Board Can Do  Be realistic about test scores gains and the feasibility of all schools and all subgroups making AYP  Develop quality district assessments  Improve student assignments and grading practices  Make improved data use a key goal, provide resources to make it happen  Work cooperatively as a board, superintendent, and district

25. 25 Resources  Your Own District Staff  EdSource -- www.edsource.org  CRESST.org -- National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing  WestEd.org -- Regional laboratory and future home of the new “Accountability and Assessment Comprehensive Center”