No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bureau of Indian Education
Advertisements

1 Overview: What is “No Child Left Behind”?. 2 Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) of ’65 Money to states for specific.
No Child Left Behind. ALL students will attain proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by ALL limited English students will become.
IDEA and NCLB The Connection Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction December 2003.
No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
No Child Left Behind The Federal Education Law and Science Education May, 2004.
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
Coal City Unit District #1 Title I Parent Meeting.
The Evolution of the Virginia School Report Card Board of Education School & Division Accountability Committee February 25, 2015.
PSSA and the Girard School District An analysis of the 2009 results and their implications. Katrina Johnston ED520INA.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.
The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
NCLB Title I, Part A Parent Notification Idaho SDE Title I Director’s Meeting September 15, 2008 Cathryn Gardner, Senior Program Advisor Northwest Regional.
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities Presentation for OSEP Staff March 20, 2003 Stephanie Lee Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
May 25,  MSP scores are compared against a uniform bar.  The MSP scores compared against the uniform bar are not representative of individual.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
PIZZA and PSSA. What is PSSA? A standardized state test that shows student growth in grades 3-8 Given in April Math - Numbers and operations, measurement,
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA January 8, 2002.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
Presenters: Emily & Lily Professor: Dr. James C. Lawlor Date: July 23rd.
No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
AYP and Report Card. AYP/RC –Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. –Understand the purpose and role of the Report Card in Oregon.
No Child Left Behind Education Week
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind  NCLB Overview  Assessment and Accountability Requirements  Educator Quality.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Title I Faculty Presentation Faculty Title I and AYP Combined Presentation.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
Adequate Yearly Progress By Allyson, Brette, and Riley.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
US Government Mrs. Lacks ON THE ISSUES: EDUCATION.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
6/14/2016 “A Horse of a Different Color” No Child Left Behind and Accountability The State Testing Program Louisiana.
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS ADVISORY TEAM MEETING WELCOME Brenda B. Blackburn, Superintendent Berkeley County School District November 17, 2015, 5:30 pm.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
A Brief History Data-Based School & District Improvement
Illinois’ Accountability Workbook: Approved Changes in 2005
WELCOME!!! Triple I Conference November 19, 2005
Analysis of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
AYP and Report Card.
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
EDN Fall 2002.
History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Presentation transcript:

No Child Left Behind Act January 2002

Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure that states set high learning standards and that all students meet these standards. Bi-partisan support in Congress Larger scale version of “successful” educational reform imitative under Governor Bush (Texas Miracle: set high standards, hold schools accountable, then student achievement increases.)

NCLB Goals All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by By , all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the third grade. By , all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English. All students will graduate from high school. (Illinois State Board of Education:

NCLB Requirements Annual testing of all students against state standards in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in science at three times in a student’s school career (including once in high school). “Verification” of each state’s assessment system via required participation (every other year) by selected districts in the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) test. Aggregate and disaggregate analysis and reporting of student achievement results. A state definition and timeline for determining whether a school, district and the state are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent of students meeting state standards by the school year.

NCLB Requirements Technical assistance and then sanctions for schools, districts and the state for failure to make AYP. Highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects by Support for students not meeting standards and/or for those who have special needs (e.g., homeless, limited- English-proficiency). The use of “scientifically-based” programs and strategies.

PA NCLB Assessment Grades and Subjects for Accountability Purposes: SY : Grades 5, 8 and 11 Reading and Math SY : Grades 3, 4, 6, 7 Reading and Math SY : Grades 4, 8 and 11 Science PA Dept of Education

PSSA Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Levels of Performance: Advanced: Superior academic performance. Indicates an in-depth understanding and exemplary display of the skills included in the Pennsylvania Academic Content Standards (PACS) Proficient: Satisfactory academic performance. Indicates a solid understanding and adequate display of the skills included in the PACS. Basic: Marginal academic performance. Indicates a partial understanding and limited display of the skills included in the PACS. This work is approaching satisfactory performance, but has not been reached. There is a need for additional instructional opportunities and/or increased student academic commitment to achieve the Proficient Level. Below Basic: Inadequate academic performance. Indicates little understanding and minimal display of the skills included in the PACS.

PSSA See PSSA results and AYP results

PA AYP Timetable Year Percent Proficient or above in Reading Percent Proficient or above in Math

Pa Dept of Education Academic Achievement Reports: The three AYP categories in 2005 are: 1. School Attendance and Graduation Rate for schools without a High School graduating class: Target of 90% attendance or any improvement from previous year; for schools with High School graduating class: Target of 80% graduation rate or any improvement from previous year. 2.Achieving Proficiency (Performance): Schools and every measurable subgroup in the school must meet math (45% proficient) and reading (54%) standards. 3. Taking the Test (Participation): At least 95% of students overall and within each subgroup must take the test.

Allentown School District Navigate to Lehigh County, Allentown City SD, then click on Allentown City SD to get report. NCLB “Report cards” for district/schools should be available Oct 28, 2005

Safe Harbor: a subgroup has greatly improved since the previous year — even though it did not meet the state target. Must have at least a 10% percent reduction of the percentage of students who scored below proficient for Reading or Mathematics from last year to this year.

School Improvement: 1st year (of not meeting targets): Warning 2nd Year: School Improvement I –School choice, school assistance teams, and a specific plan for improvement. 3rd Year: School Improvement – Same, plus Supplemental Education Services (SES) such as tutoring, after school and summer school for eligible students (paid for by district). 4th Year of not meeting Targets: Corrective Action I –Same as School Improvement plus significant changes in leadership, curriculum, professional development or other strategies. 5th Year: Corrective Action II –Same, plus significant changes in governance such as reconstitution, chartering, or privatization.

School Choice If a school is identified as being in School Improvement, the school/district is required to offer parents the option of sending their child to another public school (including charter schools) within the school district. If no other school within the district is available, a district shall, to the extent practical, enter into a cooperative agreement with another district that will allow students to transfer.

Issues: Political setting What material gets tested on PSSA? School choice: other districts are not taking students. Unfunded mandates: district pay test taking, scoring costs.

Thesis: When schools are held accountable for results and high standards are set, then student achievement will go up. Texas Miracle: Cheating by school administrators. Improvement on state test but not on NEAP; teaching to the test? Test scores go up but learning (i.e. transferable) does not. How valid are the Texas results? Should we use them as a basis of making a national policy?

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress see State NAEP; then 2003 assessments in math and science.