Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

By: Nicole Dobek, Jill Robertson & Stephanie Socci EXED 509-Dr. Garrison June 26, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "By: Nicole Dobek, Jill Robertson & Stephanie Socci EXED 509-Dr. Garrison June 26, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 By: Nicole Dobek, Jill Robertson & Stephanie Socci EXED 509-Dr. Garrison June 26, 2010

2  “Education opens doors to children for a lifetime and leads to their success. NCLB is the engine driving a new era of accountability for every child’s learning journey. Children who are being left behind must be identified and states will have the responsibility to provide the resources to teach every child how to read, to apply mathematics, to study, to learn—to succeed,” (Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003).

3 Basic Facts  Cornerstone of Bush Administration  Concern for “neediest children left behind”  Solutions for school systems Accountability Choice Flexibility  Improve nation’s schools’ performances  Reauthorizes ESEA of 1965

4 Foundations of Reauthorization  Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson  Revised every 5-7 years  Includes key programs: Title I  Increased accountability, parent choice, school flexibility  Stronger emphasis on reading

5 A Nation at Risk  Revealed sub-par state of education system  Indicators of risk 13% of 17 year-olds functionally illiterate Scores declining according to SAT’s 50% could draw inferences, write persuasive essay, solve multi-step math problems  “All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost,” (Jorgensen & Hoffmann, 2003).

6 A Nation at Risk  Beginning of evolution in achievement- testing/education-based education reform  Recommendations  Educational process School content Expectations Time Teacher preparation

7 Steps to NCLB  Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994 Standards-based Poor schools, low-achieving students  Goals 2000: Educate America Act Challenging standards, school reforms to increase student performance  ESEA of 1994 States/localities flexibility to design/operate own federally-funded education programs  January 8, 2002, President bush signed into law the NCLB of 2001

8 Purpose  Eliminate achievement gap Gap greatest between white/affluent students and Black, Hispanic, and students living in poverty Reading and mathematics  Nation’s committed efforts to excellence/fairness in education  All students achieve

9 Four Pillars of NCLB  Stronger accountability for results  More freedom for states and communities  Proven education methods  More choices for parents

10 Implementation Timeline  : Affected district employment decisions  : Achievement tags  : Improvement planning, reporting requirements  : Accountability processes, school improvement continuation  : All grades 3-8 and 11 must have been tested; teachers/paraprofessionals meet standards  : All schools make AYP; all students meet/exceed reading and mathematics standards

11 Applying NCLB in Schools  Strategies: Academic Intervention Services (AIS) Response to Intervention (RtI)

12 Academic Intervention Services  Where/What- supplemental instruction and various support services to overcome barriers such as attendance, discipline & family matters  Who- students in ELA & Math grades k- 12; science & social studies grades 4-12  When- fail to meet the “state-designated performance level”

13 Response to Intervention  Prevention-oriented approach to linking assessment and instruction  Goal- minimize long-term negative learning outcomes by responding quickly & efficiently to documented learning/behavioral problems through integrating academic instruction & positive behavioral supports

14 Response to Intervention, cont. o “Schools use data to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence- based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities,” (National Center for Response to Intervention).

15

16 Benefits of RtI  Eliminates “wait to fail” situation  Struggling students receive help promptly in the general education setting  Reduces number of students from diverse cultural, racial or linguistic backgrounds that have been misidentified as having a disability

17 School-Wide Strategies  Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)  Title I  Supplemental Educational Services (SES)  Public School Choice (PSC)  Differentiated Accountability

18 Adequate Yearly Progress  Holds schools accountable; guarantees that every school will strive to improve  Sets the minimum level of improvement that schools must achieve each year  Goal: ensure that every student will graduate with a mastery of the basic skills

19 Adequate Yearly Progress, cont. Increase attendance and lower drop-out rate of culturally/ linguistically diverse students “Sound and reasonable” v. “zero tolerance” To increase attendance: Family involvement Set high expectations Strategies to engage students Mentoring/ Student Advisories

20 Adequate Yearly Progress, cont.  Set the initial achievement bar based on the lowest-achieving demographic group or lowest-achieving schools within the state  Initial bar must be raised within two years and at least once every three years thereafter

21 Adequate Yearly Progress, cont. If a school fails to meet AYP: 2 years “in need of improvement”; more funding; PSC 3 years and SES 4 years corrective action; staff/curriculum replacement 5 years plan for restructuring; state take-over; closure

22 Title I  Over $7 billion annually to schools for 12.5 million students living at or near poverty  “To ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments, ” (National Center for Response to Intervention, n.d.).

23 Title I, cont.  Schools with large concentrations of low-income and at- risk students are eligible  At-risk includes: single-parent or low-income households, with high absenteeism, or low academic performance  Improve curriculum, instructional activities, parental involvement, and increase staff

24 Public School Choice (PSC)  All children attending schools [receiving Title I funds] identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are eligible  Expands parental choice and gives schools a greater incentive to make the necessary changes to improve access to quality instruction and increase students’ academic achievement

25 New York Schools New YorkUnited States Number of Schools4, 67298,905 Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Not Available64,546 (70%) Schools in Need of Improvement586 (13%)10,676 (11%) Schools in Restructuring256 (5%)2,302 (2%) Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, & NCES CCD,

26 Options for Parents # of Eligible New York Students % of Eligible New York Students Participating % of Eligible Students Participating Nationally Tutoring274,11464,906 (23.7%)529,627 (14.5%) Choice315,3263,692 (1.2%)119,988 (2.2%) Source: Consolidated State Performance Report,

27 Differentiated Accountability A pilot program of the United States Department of Education designed to provide states with additional flexibility to help them achieve the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal of having every student at or above the proficiency level in reading and math by New York State joined the pilot for the school year!

28 Why New York?  Data show that a large majority of schools in New York that are identified on a single accountability measure for a single subgroup are able to make AYP  The longer a school is in the process and the more groups for which it is identified, the less likely that the school will make AYP  Differentiation allows for “right sizing” of intervention strategies, giving districts greater responsibility and latitude to work with schools with lesser needs and creating state/local partnerships to address schools with greater needs

29 Benefits of Differentiated Accountability in NYSA  Reduce current number of school accountability categories from 17 to 8 Eliminate dual Title I and non-Title I streams of improvement Integrate federal and state accountability systems Collapse identification for improvement into 3 phases ○ Provides schools with diagnostic tools and planning strategies ○ Provides specific supports and interventions  Allow for differentiation in improvement process Permit schools/districts to prepare/implement improvement plans  Strengthen capacity of districts to assist schools to improve  Empower parents by increasing combined participation in Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Offer SES in 1 st year of school’s “improvement” status School choice after school fails to make AYP

30 Schools in Improvement Phase Find Early Success Phase*06-07 Category* ImprovementBasic ImprovementFocused ImprovementComprehensive** Corrective ActionFocused Corrective ActionComprehensive** RestructuringFocused RestructuringComprehensive** Status # of Schools# Made AYP% Made AYP % % % % % % 77912% % * Based on the phase and category to which schools would have been assigned in under this model ** SURRs are a subset of the Comprehensive category in each of the phases and make AYP at the rate of 15 %

31 How it Works  Accountability designations based on both the number and type of student groups failing to make AYP and the length of time such failure has persisted.  Three distinct, two-year, phases of intervention: Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring.  Three distinct categories within phases: Basic, Focused and Comprehensive.

32 Phase Differentiated Accountability Model CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPROVEMENTRESTRUCTURING CURRICULUM AUDIT SCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW ASSIGNMENT OF Joint Intervention Team and Distinguished Educator FOCUSEDCOMPBASICFOCUSED COMPRE- HENSIVE FOCUSEDCOMP SURR FAILED AYP 2 YEARS CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN & IMPLEMENTATIO N OF CURRICULUM AUDIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN CREATE AND IMPLEMENT External personnel to revise and assist school implement the most rigorous plan or, as necessary, PHASE-OUT /CLOSURE SED provides TA to districts: sustaining greater latitude and more responsibility for addressing schools SED empowers districts: gives them the support and assistance necessary to take primary responsibility for developing and implementing improvement strategies SED & its agents work in direct partnership with the district Category Diagnostic Plan/ Intervention Oversight & Support

33 Is NCLB working? According to U.S. Department of Education…  NCLB benefits children, empowers parents, supports teachers and strengthens schools  43 states improved academically in reading and math  For 9 year olds, more progress made in reading in 5 years than in previous 28 years combined  80% of 4 th graders in urban districts higher than national average in reading & math What do you think?

34 Activity-NCLB Pros & Cons  In your groups, review the pros and cons of NCLB  Decide whether or not NCLB is beneficial to our education system  Be prepared to share your point of view with the other groups

35 References  AIS: A guide to academic intervention services. (2008). Retrieved from ‌ k12_7673.htm  FAQ on No Child Left Behind. (n.d.). Retrieved from ‌ nclbchoice.html  Jorgensen, M.A,. & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History of the no child left behind act of 2001 (NCLB). Retrieved from BDF4D49D7274/0/HistoryofNCLB.pdf  Klotz, M. B., Canter, A., & National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Response in intervention (RtI): A primer for parents [Brochure]. Retrieved from ‌ resources/ ‌ handouts/ ‌ rtiprimer.pdf  Learning First Alliance (2003). Major changes to ESEA in the no child left behind act: Highlights of changes and implementation timeline. Retrieved from  National Center for Response to Intervention. (n.d.). Essential components of RtI-A closer look at response to intervention [Brochure]. Retrieved from ‌ images/ ‌ stories/ ‌ pdfs/ ‌ rtiessentialcomponents_ pdf  National Education Association (2010). Background: NCLB, the basics. Retrieved from  New York State Education Department. (2008). New York State education department proposal to participate in the NCLB differentiated accountability pilot [Brochure]. Albany, NY.  New York State Education Department (2008).Proposal to participate in the NCLB differentiated accountability pilot program. Albany, New York 12234: New York State Education Department.  New York State Education Department. (2009, December 3). Service summary information Huntington Learning Center, Inc. In Supplemental educational services. Retrieved from  Railsback, J. (Ed.). (2004, July). By Request...Increasing Student Attendance: Strategies From Research and Practice.  Ruiz, J. & Koch, C. (2002). No child left behind (NCLB) illinois state board of education. Retrieved from  The Education Industry Association. (2007). The performance and promise of supplemental educational services under “no child left behind” [Brochure].  U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Public school choice non-regulatory guidance [Pamphlet].  U.S. Department of Education (2002). Executive summary: The no child left behind act of Retrieved from  U.S. Department of Education (2004). Overview: Pillars of NCLB. Retrieved from  U.S. Department of Education (2004). Teacher update: What is the purpose of the no child left behind act? Retrieved from:  U.S. Department of Education (2006). Overview: No child left behind act is working. Retrieved from  What are the current provisions of the NCLB law? (n.d.). Retrieved from ‌ nclbchoice.html


Download ppt "By: Nicole Dobek, Jill Robertson & Stephanie Socci EXED 509-Dr. Garrison June 26, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google