Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB February 23, 2006 Terri Duggan Schwartzbeck American Association of School Administrators.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB February 23, 2006 Terri Duggan Schwartzbeck American Association of School Administrators."— Presentation transcript:

1 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB February 23, 2006 Terri Duggan Schwartzbeck American Association of School Administrators

2 Getting Started You Your district Your experiences with AYP

3 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working What’s Ahead Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits

4 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits What’s Ahead

5 Implementation – First Year December 2001 – Bill passed in Congress January 8, 2002 – signed by President Bush July 24, 2002 – first letter with guidance to state chiefs August 6, 2002 – first NPRM Fall 2002 – first round of AYP identifications December 2, 2002 – first final regulations dealing with assessment

6 Implementation – Second Year January 2003 – funding fight begins June 10, 2003 – all state plans “approved” by USED December 9, 2003 – final regulation regarding assessment of students with disabilities – 1 percent rule

7 Implementation – Third Year February 20, 2004 – first flexibility policy regarding LEP students March 15, 2004 – flexibility for teacher quality March 30, 2004 – flexibility on participation rates Spring and Summer – continued funding fights November 5, 2004 – Paige announces intent to resign November 17, 2004 – Spellings nominated as new Secretary

8 Implementation – Fourth Year January-April 2005 – Connecticut Fight April 7, 2005 – Spellings announces more plans for flexibility April 20, 2005 – NEA Lawsuit August 22, 2005 – Connecticut Lawsuit August 31, 2005 – Chicago supplemental services waiver October 21, 2005 – Teacher Quality – good faith effort November 21, 2005 – Spellings announces plan for growth models November 23, 2005 – NEA lawsuit dismissed December 14, 2005 – updated regulations on assessment of special education – 1+2=3

9 Where Are We Now? AYP – How are the numbers? State accountability plans –What’s behind the numbers? Special Education regulations Growth Models Reauthorization talks

10 % of Schools Not Making AYP, 2005 FL: 64% 20% 43% 12% 16% 41% 40% 26% 56% 35% 21% 47% 9% 24% 20% 44% 25% 36% 6% 16% 13% 54% 24% 13% 19% 21% 35% 17% 30% 11% 24% MA: 44% RI: 19% NH: 39% VT: 3.4% CT: 20% NJ: 36% DE: 33% MD: 20% DC: 49% 53% 2% 7% 66% 13% 4.4% 27% 5% 8.6% 18% 20%

11 % of Schools In Need of Improvement, 2005 FL: 32% 13% 15% 13% 9% 34% 27% 10% 4% 15% 38% 17% 175% 6% 13% 4% 7% 29% 30% 8% 4% 13% 6% 9% 5% NH: 7% VT: 2% MA: 24% CT: 15% RI: 9% NJ: 25% DE: 21% MD: 18% DC: 42% 19 6% 7% 9% 7% 3% 2% - 48% 4% 19% 16% 9% 2.4% 19% 14%

12 % of DISTRICTS Not Making AYP, % MA: 17% RI: 19% NH: 9% VT: 10% CT: 17% NJ: % DE: % MD: 38% 12% 56% 4% 66% 45% 50% 29% 8% 78% 32% 24% 44% 6% 47% 6% 23% 7% 16% 12% 4% 1% 28% 38% 80% 92% 31%

13 % of DISTRICTS In Need of Improvement, % VT: 3.4% MA: 65% MD: 33% 15% 17% 30% 7% 0 0.8% 27% 2% 1.1% 7% 3.5% 24% 27% 0.2% 11% 10% 34% 80% 7% 8% 51%

14 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working State Action & Lawsuits Money Update Advocating about NCLB What’s Ahead

15 NCLB Implementation: State Accountability Plans

16 Subgroup Size Biggest change: switch to proportional model –GA: 40 students or 10%, with a cap of 75 –FL: 30 and 15% or 100 –More states now with cap of 100 or 200 A few other states increased subgroup size – HI, IL Different sizes for different subgroups now frowned upon –NE eliminated –NPRM prohibits Lingering question: group size applied to grade or school? Some confusing language

17 Subgroup Sizes

18 Does Subgroup Size Matter? In one state…

19 How is subgroup size impacting your district?

20 Confidence Interval Increasing number of states using 99% confidence interval 75% confidence interval for safe harbor

21 Confidence Interval for Safe Harbor

22 Maryland’s Highland Elementary; Source: Maryland Department of Education Understanding Confidence Intervals These groups missed the target but made AYP. Confidence interval

23 Confidence Interval and Subgroup Size The larger the subgroup, the smaller the “wiggle room” provided by the confidence interval. Source: Maryland State Department of Education

24 How are confidence intervals impacting your district?

25 Annual Measurable Objectives Every state has… A starting point Annual Measurable Objectives – annual targets that must be met to make AYP and determine the path to proficiency And every state must have a goal of 100% of students at the proficient level by 2014

26 Backloading or “Balloon Payment”

27 Stair Step

28 Linear

29 Changes in AMOs New assessments=new baselines, new objectives in at least 5 states Florida, Virginia, and Missouri switched from stair step to linear

30 Use of Performance Indices Weighted index –Gives “credit” for students scoring just below proficient –But cannot get “extra credit” for students scoring advanced

31 District AYP Same subject + All grade spans + Two consecutive years = 31 states AYPGrade Span AYPINOIAYPINOI CA 63.6%36.4%85.6%14.4% GA 36.5%63.5%93.4%6.6% Does it matter? Data from the Harvard Civil Rights Project But it may also help and hurt districts disproportionately!

32 How are AMOs and district AYP impacting your district?

33 Graduation Rates NCES 4 year calculation Extra time for students with disabilities Thresholds and goals vary –from 58% to 100% –some states only need to improve 0.1% per year No GEDs can count

34 Full Academic Year 180 days? October 1? Challenge for states with many year round schools Few states making it a “full” year –Continuous enrollment through two spring testing cycles (HI) –May 1 and next year’s assessment (IL) –Must be enrolled by July 1 of previous year (NJ) –140 days (NC)

35 Retests Virginia – finally approved Other states – AL, MI, NV, NJ, NY, OR, TN, TX, WA, WY Must not result in pressure to students to retake exams solely to get a higher score

36 Assessing Special Education Students Under NCLB A special case

37 Policies regarding special education assessment The 1 percent rule –Caps number of proficient and advanced scores on alternate assessments to alternate standards Severely cognitively disabled students Includes out of level if applicable Issues with accommodations Subgroup size

38 New Policy – the 2 percent rule Caps score on alternate assessments to modified standards –Persistent academic difficulties Transition defined as a “proxy” which calculates a number equal to two percent that is added to the special education population number of proficient scores

39 States using the 2% proxy

40 2 Percent Rule Codified in New Proposed Regulations Modified achievement standards Focus on clear guidelines – states must have criteria for IEP teams to determine eligibility Out of level testing Subgroup sizes for groups of students 1+2 really does = 3 Retests Coordination between ESEA and IDEA Concerns What is a modified standard? Delay in regulations Role of IEP teams Concern for small districts Scientific basis

41 In 2005, 35 states increased their targets for the first time. How did changes affect AYP? Most states made major changes to state accountability plans No clear pattern Most states decreased schools not making AYP between 03 and 04 and increased between 04 and 05 However, number of schools not making AYP in 05 was not nearly as bad as feared

42 AYP and Schools In Need of Improvement, Total Nationwide Data from NEA, January 2006

43 Biggest Changes Special Education Assessment Identifying Districts for Improvement Subgroup Size Graduation Rates Performance Indices Annual Measurable Objectives

44 Lowering Standards? State seeks changes to U.S. education law Louisville Courier-Journal, 11/30/05 Federal rules called too unforgiving Kentucky public schools would have an easier time meeting No Child Left Behind's reading and math standards and avoiding penalties under changes the state is asking the federal government to approve. Relaxed standards part of reason for better scores Chicago Sun-Times, 11/9/05 When the state first released test results this summer, it looked as if more schools and districts had met federal testing goals than last year. But relaxed state standards this year, not necessarily better performance, account for some of that growth, new data analyzed by the Chicago Sun-Times shows. The softened standards made it easier for some groups, particularly limited English and special needs students, to pass. Standards for No Child law eased Chicago Sun-Times, 6/29/05 State eyes standards change Miami Herald, 3/17/05 After hearing complaints from school districts, the state of Florida may change its standards for the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

45 How have changes to state accountability plans been discussed in your state?

46 Implementing Choice Still low turnout – around 1 percent District compliance Logistical challenges –Schools identified on time –Capacity: class size, space 20% set-aside Choice transportation: (i) an amount equal to 5 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide, or pay for, transportation under paragraph (9); (ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide supplemental educational services under subsection (e); and (iii) an amount equal to the remaining 10 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 for transportation under paragraph (9), supplemental educational services under subsection (e), or both, as the agency determines. How long should funds be reserved? “Adequate” and “sufficient” time

47 Implementing Supplemental Services Low numbers of students served – 12% –226,000 of 2 million (2004) Districts as providers 20% set-aside – 5% for choice SES before choice in 4 districts in VA Best practices: –Provider fairs –Asking parents to rank –District assessments help with monitoring

48 SES Provider Types Private For Profit 49% Private Nonprofit Nonreligious 18% School Districts 14% Don’t Know 5% Other 1% Private Nonprofit Religious 7% Other Public 5% Source: Center on Education Policy, 2005

49 Implementing Supplemental Services Challenges: States, Feds, Districts, Providers all casting blame Schools identified on time Number of providers, esp. rural and inner city Low completion rates Complicated paperwork Funding Provider capacity, esp. for special needs students Evaluating and monitoring; showing progress Quality of teachers

50 Implementing Teacher Quality “Flexibility” –HOUSSE –March 2004: Rural, science & multi-subject 29 state have been monitored by ED –Focus on hiring and retention in –Focus on compliance with parent notification requirements and paraprofessionals in Difficulty of data Importance of good faith efforts = paperwork The “highly qualified” dichotomy Deadline: end of school year –Both teachers and paraprofessionals

51 State Requirements for Teacher Quality Education Week, February 15, 2006

52 How have you experienced the implementation of choice, supplemental services, and teacher quality?

53 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits What’s Ahead

54 The goal of NCLB and AYP The Flat Tax

55 The current AYP system

56 After all, it’s no longer this… English Math additional indicator/ graduation 95% participation All Students Black Hispanic Native American Asian White LEP Poverty IEP

57 But this: ReadingMath 95% Addl Ind. Graduation AMOAMO with CI Safe Harbor (with or w/o CI) Retest1% cap on alt. assess 2% proxy mod. assess AMOAMO with CI Safe Harbor Retest1% cap on alt. assess 2% proxy mod. assess With med. emerg., FAY With or w/o lag? 4 year NCES? Extra years SWD White Black Hisp. Asian Nativ e Am. LEP Econ Disadv Spec. Needs Repeat for each grade level…

58 But children aren’t numbers. How can we have a system that: provides accountability in a way that allows for the unique differences in children, schools, and districts? Works for each child? All children? Every child? Captures what we want to capture about success in school?

59 Growth Models What is a growth model? NWEA (how many of you are using?) Political context Current ED policy

60 States Applying to Use Growth Model

61 Some Growth Models In Use Sanders/SASinSchool –Often used for teacher professional development or in-school data-driven decision making –Tennessee Indexing (California’s API) –Compares schools to others with comparable demographics –Growth every year but may not result in 100% proficiency NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) –MAP (Measure of Added Progress) test Computer adaptive Used primarily in schools and districts Widespread – a million students, hundreds of school districts, dozens of states –Hybrid Success Model

62 Growth Models As a Response to Concerns about AYP Reliance on one-year snapshots Tendency to reflect demographics more than school effectiveness Failure to recognize that schools and students are starting in different places Failure to address the individual needs of each child Does not provide information about why a group of students might be behind – simply lumps children in categories The incentives it creates are contrary to the intent of the law Little distinction within the system of schools that are improving by leaps and bounds but still below the targets – broad brush Research that human beings learn at different rates

63 Growth Models Better for School Improvement? Identify the schools that need the most help and which are most effective Home in on schools that are both low- achieving and experiencing low growth rates  more efficient targeting of resources Allow schools that are on the move and heading in the right direction to continue without interference – and give them an incentive to continue to improve

64 Growth Models Better for Students We can not get to universal proficiency with policies designed for all students. Instead we need policies that will allow teachers to teach EACH student and work with each student’s individual needs. Growth models create the conditions to get to universal proficiency and give educators the road map to improvement, something the existing AYP model leaves as a black box. Targets can be set for individual students, ensuring that those who are still below proficiency have high but reachable goals, and those who are closer to proficiency have appropriate goals that allow them to grow further.

65 What’s Ahead: NCLB in Congress More bills introduced during first session then all of the 108 th Congress. Rank & file members are disgruntled. Committee leadership has no desire to open up the law. There will be more hearings held in preparation for reauthorization. Full reauthorization will not occur until 2007 or 2009.

66 States whose Representative or Senator have sponsored a bill in the U.S. Congress to amend NCLB Data from NEA, January 2006

67 Reauthorization: Lines in the Sand Commitment to 100% by 2014 “No excuses” mentality Does money matter? Some openness to growth models Other fundamental divides –Role of local governance (teacher quality) –Role of federal government

68 AASA’s Positions Problems in NCLB –Assessment –Special groups  Not worth fixing  Instead, we need to renegotiate the terms federal/state/local partnership –Compensation for services provided under a contract

69 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working What’s Ahead Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits

70 State Action on NCLB State Legislatures

71 Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education

72

73

74

75

76

77 NCSL Report Recommendations Congress should create a revitalized state-federal partnership that acknowledges diversity among states and shifts focus from processes and requirements to outcomes and results. Remove obstacles that stifle state innovations and undermine state programs that were proving to work before passage of the act. Federal waivers should be granted and publicized for innovative programs; Fully fund the act and provide states the financial flexibility to meet its goals. Remove the one-size-fits-all method that measures student performance: –encourage more sophisticated and accurate systems that gauge the growth of individual students and not just groups of students. –States believe the 100-percent proficiency goal is not statistically achievable and that struggling schools need the opportunity to address problems before losing parts of their student populations; –Allow for multiple measures Give IDEA primacy over NCLB in cases of conflict. Recognize that some schools face special challenges, including adequately teaching students with disabilities and English language learners. The law also needs to recognize the differences among rural, suburban and urban schools.

78 Lawsuits Connecticut –Testing every year –Cost and quality of tests –State must show that it exhausted all measures NEA –Unfunded mandate –On appeal

79 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working New Regulations Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits

80 Funding: Bottom Line It’s really, really bad. –First cut in over a decade. Perfect storm around Title I. –Basic grants get cut. –Concentration grants level funded. –Targeted grants increase. –Education Finance Incentive Grants increase. –Overall cut. It’s not going to get better, unless…

81 FY 06 Federal Funding for 2006 – 2007 School Year Education cut for the first time in over a decade –$651 million cut with 1% across the board K-12 programs received major cuts –Title I - $26.5 million –IDEA - $7 million Goes from 18.6 percent to 17.8 percent –Education Technology - $224 million A 45 percent cut –Safe and Drug Free Schools - $90 million A 20 percent cut –Education Innovative Block Grant - $99 million A 50 percent cut

82 Funding Cuts for Title I Overall Title I was cut by $26.5 million for FY 2006 –Basic Grants cut by $126.5 million –Concentration Grants level funded –Targeted Grants receive $50 million increase –Education Finance Incentive Grants increased $50 million

83 Title I and the Perfect Storm In FY 04 (2004 – 2005 school year), ½ of all districts lost funding in Title I. In FY 05 (2005 – 2006 school year), we anticipate that 2/3 of all districts will lose Title I funding. These funding cuts are due to three areas: –Sole increases for targeted grants and education finance incentive grants. –Use of new census poverty numbers. –Across the board cuts being applied to only the basic grants.

84 President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget Budget was introduced on February 6, 2006 Education was cut by $2.1 billion or 3.8 % Bush’s budget reduced the federal commitment to IDEA –Reduces the federal share from 17.8% to 17% Title I Grants to school districts are level- funded. Medicaid reimbursement for school districts is eliminated. –End to administrative and transportation claiming.

85 President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget Budget disproportionately cuts education programs. –Out of 141 programs eliminated in entire federal budget, 42 programs are education related. Successful programs would be eliminated under FY 2007 budget: –Perkins Career and Technical Education –Safe and Drug Free Schools –Title II, Part D – Education Technology State Grants

86 Competing Priorities of the Federal Budget Pressure of balancing the budget –Impact of deficit spending. –Congress would like to balance budget on back of domestic programs, i.e. education Large growth of mandatory spending –Social Security, Medicare Educators must be heard during the education debate to avoid being cut again. Talk about potential cuts in terms of impact on services to students and staffing.

87 Prepared by AASA Decline of the Federal Investment in Education

88 Federal funding for K-12 will continue to decline In millions Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

89 Most People Greatly Overestimate Federal Funding for Public Schools Thinking about the funding for public schools in your community, what percentage of this funding do you think is provided by the federal government? N=1,001 AASA Polling Ipsos Public Affairs 1-05

90 Funding and Federalism More federal mandates and requirements + cuts in federal funding = a local tax passed on to taxpayers? We need to renegotiate the terms of the federal/ state/local partnership Compensation for services provided under a contract Less money, less services More money, more services Congress does not feel accountable to you on federal funding for education

91 No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB Implementation Overview How Accountability is Working New Regulations Money Update Advocating about NCLB State Action & Lawsuits

92 AASA Polling Data

93 Where does the public (and parents) get their information about public schools? Who do they believe?

94 Newspapers and Television Are The Predominant Sources of Information About Public Schools Was the Source of the MOST RECENT item about public schools you saw, read, or heard… Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

95 Local Newspapers Are The Major Source Of Information About Public Schools Did you read this news in a national newspaper, such as USA Today or the New York Times, a local newspaper, or a magazine, such as Time or Newsweek? Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

96 Local Television News Is the Clear Major Television Source of News About Public Schools Did you see this news on a national news program, a cable news program, a local news program, or some other type of program? Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

97 How important is it to you personally that information about public schools in your area is reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports? The Public, And Especially Parents, Want Media To Report On Public Schools Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

98 How important is it to you personally that the following types of information about public schools in your area be reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports? Respondents Want Stories about Achievement, But Information Regarding Student Citizenship Is Most Important Overall 91% Total Important 89% Total Important 76% Total Important Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

99 What Information About Test Scores Is Most Important? % of students passing state tests Trends in test scores from previous years Increases in the # of students passing state test None of above Don’t care about test scores Not Sure % of students not passing state tests Test Scores by Race/ethnicity and Socioeconomic status Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

100 Information Considered Most Important On A School Website Curriculum objectives School meetings- PTA, parent/ teacher night Discipline policies Standardized test scores Grade policies School official response to state/federal criticisms Cafeteria menus Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

101 So, local media is the primary outlet, and local school leaders are a trusted source.

102 Credibility As A News Source On Public Schools Starts In The Classroom And Ends In Washington On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about public school education. Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10) Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

103 Credibility Of Public School Education News Sources continued On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about public school education. Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10) Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

104 When a high level official from the U.S. Department of Education says there is sufficient funding to meet new federal standards for student achievement and a local school leader says the federal initiatives are under-funded, who is more believable? Local school leader 80% High-level government official 14% Neither 4% Not sure 2% Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid February 2004

105 Senior researcher from a think tank 7% College or University Professor 8% Local school leader 24% Local Teacher 53% Who do you think would have the best ideas about how to improve schools? Other 8% Included in “Other” Political Candidate 3% Federal Official 2% None of the above 2% Not Sure 1% Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid March 2004

106 Suppose you read or heard a news report in which a high-level official from the U.S. Department of Education says that students are not making sufficient progress because teachers and administrators are not trying hard enough. Is that something you would definitely believe, probably believe, definitely not believe or probably not believe? 37% 24% 26%11% 2% Total believe 37% Total not believe 61% Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

107 How do NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress impact the public’s view of public schools?

108 What Impact Does News About Test Results Have? The public believes the state labels as applied more than federal labels Failing to make AYP makes about 2/3’s of the public impression of school quality decline The impression of decline is slightly greater among parents than the general public

109 There Are Either More Negative Stories Than Positive Stories Or Readers Read Stories As Negative Source: August 2003 poll

110 Would you say that the most recent item about public schools you saw, read or heard made you feel better or worse about public education? Neither better nor worse

111 Are public schools in the U.S. headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? A Majority Consistently Say Public Schools Are Headed in the Wrong Direction N=1001

112 A Majority Disagrees with “One Size Fits All” Penalties for Schools Under the federal No Child Left Behind accountability system, there are at least 36 achievement targets that each school must meet. Currently, a school that misses 1 or 2 of its targets receives the same penalty as a school that misses nearly all of its targets. Do agree or disagree with this way of penalizing schools? N=1,000 Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

113 As you may know, schools around the country are rated in two ways – a state accountability system required under state law and a federal accountability system required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Is your opinion about the quality of schools in your community influenced more by state labels or federal labels? People Are Influenced More By State Labels Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

114 As you may know, statewide test results are coming out this summer. Each state has their own system for rating schools in addition to federal requirements. A school may get a good grade under their state accountability system and be put on a list of low performing schools under the federal system. Is your opinion about the quality of schools in your community influenced more by state labels or federal labels? More Information Does Not Affect Preference for State Labels Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

115 Impressions of School Quality Will Decline Some for Schools in the Federal Penalty Phase If you heard that a school in your community received a passing mark under the state accountability system, but has failed to make adequate progress and is in the penalty phase under the federal requirements, would your impression of that school’s quality decline significantly, decline somewhat, or would it not have much of an effect at all? N=xxx Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

116 What messages are effective when talking about student achievement and accountability?

117 Tests are important and mostly fair, but have limitations.

118 Performance is THE Indicator of Success Name one or two results that would convince you that a school was successful with all of its students. Specific elements of “Student Performance” include: Good test scores (25%) Number of graduates (15%) Good performance on standardized testing (12%) Students are literate (7%) Quality of graduates (5%) Continual improvement (5%) Source: 2003 poll by Ipsos Reid

119 Source: Public Agenda 12/00119 From your experience, would you say these tests ask fair questions that you should be able to answer, or are the questions so difficult or unfair that you cannot be expected to answer them? [Asked of public school students, grades 6-12, who have taken standardized tests] Percentage of students saying: Are Tests Fair?

120 Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May A student’s progress for one school year can be accurately summarized by a single standardized test Total Agree 32%, Total Disagree 62% Are Tests Fair?

121 Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May Standardized test scores accurately reflect what children know about the subject being tested Total Agree 44%, Total Disagree 48% Are Tests Fair?

122 What accounts for student performance on statewide tests? Although the public recognizes the power of families over student achievement, they think that good teaching can overcome about any non-school factors. The public thinks teachers and school leaders are more able to overcome the effects of poverty than programs to alleviate poverty.

123 Quality of Teaching, Student Motivation Top Factors Affecting Test Performance Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement tests. Source: July 2005 poll

124 Significant Majority Feel Family, Income, Community and Health Affect Test Scores Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement tests. Source: July 2005 poll

125 Good teaching can overcome family, community and income-related factors that could affect performance on statewide tests 11% 41% Total Agree 81% Total Disagree 18% Source: July 2005 poll

126 Children from low-income homes generally test worse on statewide achievement tests than other children. Please tell us whether this action or group can do a great deal, a fair amount, just a little or nothing at all to improve test scores for low-income children? Source: July 2005 poll

127 When talking about accountability  talk about EACH student. When talking about achievement  talk about ALL or EVERY student.

128 Measuring Student Progress Should Focus On EACH Child There is a lot of discussion about the best way to measure student progress in our public schools. Which of the following ways of measuring student progress comes closest to your own opinion? Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005

129 Following Students Year to Year Is Best Measure Of Teaching Effectiveness 8. Thinking about the impact of teaching, which of the following do you think is the best way to accurately measure the job that teachers are doing in educating children… Individuals who feel U.S. public schools are headed in the right direction are more likely to report AYP as an accurate measure of teaching effectiveness (23% vs. 12% among those who feel schools are headed in the wrong direction). Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005

130 Achievement – A slight advantage for “all” Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005 In thinking about levels of achievement in our country’s public schools, public schools should focus on high achievement for…

131 Quality – “All” trumps “Each” 10. In thinking about quality in our country’s public schools, which of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion…public schools should focus on… Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005

132 Success – “Every Child” vs. “All Children” 11. And which of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion… I want public schools to focus on success for… Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005

133 Wrapping It Up Primary source of information for the public  Local media – print and TV Credible sources  Teachers and school leaders – NOT federal officials NCLB and tests  Important, but have limitations When talking about accountability  EACH student, state ratings first; progress matters When talking about achievement or quality  ALL students or EVERY student

134 Effective Advocacy Reaching Your Audience Work hard to develop a good trust relationship with local media, especially local newspapers and the local television news stations your community watches Most (about 70 – 75%) of the public reads, sees or hears news about public schools The main passive sources of education information are –Local newspapers –Local television news

135 Effective Advocacy Reaching Your Audience When actively seeking information about schools, the public relies on: 1.Local newspapers 2.School websites 3.School newsletters 4.Local television The Public is looking for stories about: 1.How well students are doing educationally 2.How well students are progressing in citizenship 3.Operational information, calendars, menus, etc.

136 Effective Advocacy What People Hear For some reason, bad news predominates The news makes people feel worse about public education The public feels schools are headed in the wrong direction by a steady 5 to 10 point margin BUT, a majority of parents of public school students think that schools nationally are headed in the right direction Stick to discussing your communities’ schools because you start with a foundation of good will that permits discussion of needs for improvement, and the public will find praise believable

137 Effective Advocacy Choosing the Right Messenger Superintendents are a credible source of information about schools Teachers and principals are even more credible Federal officials are the least credible source of information about education Think tanks are less credible than teachers or school system leaders in –judging how effective schools are –Determining how to improve schools When you disagree with “officials” from Washington, the public believes you

138 Effective Advocacy Talking About Test Scores The public likes to get test score information The most important testing information is average performance for schools The public wants average scores information and trend data more than disaggregated data It could be that interest in disaggregated data will grow as it is reported; it is one of the primary tools for improving student achievement

139 Effective Advocacy Expressing Disagreement The Public trusts you when you disagree with federal officials The public trusts teachers’ and then administrators’ ideas about education reform more than the feds, business leaders and university professors

140 Effective Advocacy Discussing NCLB Accountability Issues The public thinks progress ought to count in accountability The public disagrees with all or nothing accountability systems The public has more faith in state ratings than federal ratings, so make sure state ratings are stated first Missing AYP targets will hurt public perception of your schools

141 Effective Advocacy Summary You have an incredible built-in advantage as an advocate for public education in your community –The public gets its education news locally –The public trusts local sources of information more than federal sources –The public trusts your version of issues when you disagree with federal officials –Clear, common-sense messages find wide agreement in the public

142 Where Do We Go From Here?

143 What Now? How can you advocate for changes in the implementation of NCLB in your state? –Working with the key players in your state Moving forward on a renegotiated state/federal/local partnership –Start conversations with your congressional delegation –Talk about how funding cuts hurt you – be specific – what staff or services are you losing? Keep the lines of communication open with your community, build more community support for public schools –Use what we’ve learned about effective advocacy


Download ppt "No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB February 23, 2006 Terri Duggan Schwartzbeck American Association of School Administrators."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google