The Effects of NCLB on Public Schools in the United States Jerriann Cochran Inquiry Project.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WHAT IS TITLE I ? SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL PARENT MEETING October 7, 2010.
Advertisements

The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act: An Exploration of the Standardized Test Scores of Special and General Education Student Populations Amber.
Challenge to Lead Southern Regional Education Board Kentucky Challenge to Lead Goals for Education Kentucky is On the Move Progress Report 2008 Challenge.
Challenge to Lead Southern Regional Education Board Tennessee Challenge to Lead Goals for Education Tennessee is On the Move Progress Report 2008 Challenge.
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.
Education in the United States & No Child Left Behind Marc McGuigan Physics Education Forum Monday, April 23, 2007.
1 The Federal No Child Left Behind Act and the Financial Impact on Manchester Public Schools Fiscal Year
George W. Bush Provides public school choice and services for students in failing schools as early as the fall of Integrate scientifically based.
NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores Leonie Haimson & Elli Marcus Class Size Matters January.
April 9,  Our school district has received some questions regarding the State required student assessments  Parents are asking our thoughts on.
1 Changes in MS & HS Math Requirements January 7, 2008 Presented to the APS Math Teachers by Rick Scott, Bureau Chief
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TITLE I PARENT MEETING PRESENTATION.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Norm-Referenced and Criterion- Referenced Assessments A Historical view from 1900 to the Present.
Education in America, Is the American Education System Leaving Children Behind?
Tacoma School District - 1 Student Achievement Board Study December 6, 2007 Michael Power Assist. Superintendent Program and Learning Support Tel
Dr. Mary Ariail Georgia State University Teacher Education in the United States Mary Ariail, Ph.D. Department of Middle and Secondary Education College.
ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.
High Stakes Testing EDU 330: Educational Psychology Daniel Moos.
© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups: Roles for Federal Policy.
Teaching and Learning Mathematics How did we get to where we are?
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION.
What is Title I ?  It is federal funding that is attached to NCLB/ESEA legislation  It is intended to help students who are falling behind.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Standards The Achievement Gap The Debate Continues.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
1 Community Accountability Summit April History of Accountability Changes.
Title I Parent Information Session Applegate School Laura Donovan School.
Teaching and Learning Mathematics How did we get to where we are?
Information covering SAT, ACT, and ASVAB tests. *It was first called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, then the Scholastic Assessment Test, but now SAT does.
Agenda (5:00-6:30 PM): Introduction to Staff Title I Presentation PTA Information Classroom visits (two 30 minute rotations)
School Superintendents Champions for Children and Public Education.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
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.
No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind  NCLB Overview  Assessment and Accountability Requirements  Educator Quality.
Lansing Central School District District Assessment Results Presentation May 14, 2012 Dr. Stephen L. Grimm, Superintendent District Leadership Team 1.
Future Ready Schools National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in North Carolina Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Auditorium III 8:30 – 9:30 a.m.
State Board of Education June 24,  Final version of Common Core State Standards  Mathematics  English/Language Arts  CCSSO Validation Committee.
On the horizon: State Accountability Systems U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2002 Archived Information.
No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.
State Education Agency Strategies for Promoting Equity: Students of Color “ALL” means ALL Darlene Morgan Brown, Ph.D. SECC/TXCC Regional.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
EDU 4245 Class 5: Achievement Gap (cont) and Diagnostic Assessments.
‘There can be no more important subject than English in the school curriculum. English is a pre-eminent world language; it is at the heart of our culture.
Toll Middle School Title I Parent Meeting August 27, 2015.
US Government Mrs. Lacks ON THE ISSUES: EDUCATION.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): A Briefing for Alaska Lee Posey State-Federal Relations Division National Conference of State Legislatures.
Conexión Américas Education Summit Dr. Candice McQueen, Commissioner of Education Equity and Excellence in Tennessee.
Cora Howe Annual Title I Meeting and Open House Understanding Title 1 Support for Schools September 12, 2013.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Aim: Does the US need to reform the educational system? Do Now: Make a list of the best aspects of the education you receive and make a list of the worst.
1 Leading the Next Generation of Education Reform in New York State New York State Education Department James A. Kadamus September 22, 2005.
GRADE 10 CAPT ACT ADVANCED PLACEMENT SAT 2009 High School Testing Report.
Lexington City Rotary Club Tuesday, March 1, 2016 Dr. Candice McQueen, Commissioner of Education.
A Close Look at Don’t Fail Idaho’s Student Achievement Message June 25, 2013 Bert Stoneberg, Ph.D. K-12 Research Idaho
Objectives Define what Title I is and why it is important to be a Title I school Highlight your rights as a Title I parent Describe ways you can be involved.
Title I Annual Parent Meeting
Comparability of Assessment Results in the Era of Flexibility
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Highly Qualified Teacher & Paraprofessional Requirements December 2010.
NECAP PRESENTATION.
CCSSO Education Leaders Conference Using Data to Improve Instruction in Ohio Dr. Susan T. Zelman Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction.
SAT Test Administration Register ONLINE
The data-driven conclusion: High-stakes testing has failed.
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
Cross Elementary School Annual Title I Meeting
History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Ace it!SM Tutoring Teacher Training
Presentation transcript:

The Effects of NCLB on Public Schools in the United States Jerriann Cochran Inquiry Project

Stem Questions 1. Has student achievement on the ACT and NAEP improved? 2. Have there been instances of testing corruption since NCLB? 3. Do students in private schools score higher on the SAT and ACT than those in public schools? 4. How has spending on standardized testing changed since NCLB?

History NCLB (No Child Left Behind act) was signed into law in 2002 by George W Bush. Considered the largest change in federal education policy since Required states to adopt accountability systems based on minimum competency testing in order to have funding. States must meet AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) or face possible funding sanctions or state takeover. (Reback 1)

Testing & Results The Center for Educational Policy reports that student performance on State Based tests has steadily risen since NCLB. (Jennings 1) However, this does not hold true for national exams such as the ACT, SAT and NAEP. NCLB has resulted in students taking many more tests. In 2002, 19 states had annual testing in Mathematics and Reading. By 2006, every state required annual testing in Mathematics and Reading. In 2008, testing in Science was required. (Jennings 2)

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress NAEP scores following three years after NCLB enactment showed: -4 th grade reading scores remained flat with only 31% at or above proficient. -8 th graders at or above proficient fell 2% -Math proficiency for 4 th graders climbed but stayed the same in 8 th graders. (Fuller 268) -There is no evidence on the NAEP of improvements in literacy since NCLB. (Allan 9)

ACT Despite the goal of NCLB to improve educational performance and increase college readiness, the trend in ACT scores is stagnant. The Average ACT composite score for college bound seniors has hovered around 21. The five year trend is stagnant. (Shaeffer 1)

Testing and AYP The New York Times reported in December 2012 that nationwide nearly half of all schools did not meet AYP in the school year. -81% of Massachusetts schools failed to meet AYP. -61% failed in Virginia.

Private Vs. Public The March 10, 2007 issue of Time magazine reported that data showed that on the SAT ( the most widely used test of developed abilities) private school students outperform public school students. This is attributed to private schools developing more critical-thinking skills rather than the skills required for achievement tests. The data was controlled for socio-economic status.

Cost in Time Time is the most lost resource in testing. A study completed by the Wisconsin Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development found testing required 102 hours of paraprofessionals, 976 by teachers, and 62 hours by administrators. Guidance counselors spent a greater majority of their time on testing than other professionals. Some student populations lost as much as 15 days of instructional time. (Frontier 2)

Financial Cost - In Wisconsin Public Schools spent $14,700,000 on testing. (Frontier 4) -The actual cost of the paper test averages $35 per student nationwide. (Phelps) -NCLB caused an increase of $733 per pupil in states that did not have accountability testing. (Mathews)

NCLB and Corruption High stakes and accountability has caused states to “tweak” numbers. This has caused a discrepancy in state and federal definitions of proficiency. (Cawelti 65) There have been several instances in the national spotlight of teachers and administrators falsifying tests and changing answers in order to maintain AYP.

References Bush's No Child Left Behind Law Leaves Certain Children Behind. (n.d.). Research Schools, Online Courses, Degrees and Careers at Education Portal. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from portal.com/articles/Bush's_No_Child_Left_Behind_Law_Leaves_Certain_Children_B ehind.html Class Struggle - What No Child Left Behind did and didn't do. (n.d.). Blogs & Columns, Blog Directory - The Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from struggle/2010/09/inquest_on_no_child_left_behin.html Cloud, J. (2007, October 10). Are Private Schools Really Better. time, 10. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from DILLON, S. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind Act News - The New York Times. Times Topics - The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from ct/index.html64

FairTest Press Release on the 2009 ACT Scores | FairTest. (n.d.). The National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from press-release-2009-act-scores Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging Growth:How to Judge No Child Left Behind?. Educational Researcher, 36(5), Retrieved November 8, 2012, from. Cawelti, G. G. (2006). The Side Effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 645(03), Retrieved November 13, 2012, from the ASCD database. Luke, A., & Woods, A. (2008). Accountability as testing: Are there lessons about assessment and outcomes to be learnt from No Child Left Behind?.. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(03). Retrieved November 13, 2012, from the QUT Digital Repository database. Phelps, R., & Ph.D.. (n.d.). Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Educational Testing Programs. Education Consumers Clearinghouse. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from Powell, D., Aram, R., Freed, A., & Higgins, H. (2009). Impact of No Child Left Behind on Curriculum and Instruction in Rural Schools. The Rural Educator, 1(1), Retrieved November 13, 2012, from 1/Powell%20et%20al.% pdf

RTI International - News: Study: No Child Left Behind Act Improved Test Scores for Language but Not for Reading, Math in Rural Alabama. (n.d.). RTI International. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from B100-31B534B45963EC57 Stagnant, Falling College Admissions Test Scores Reflect NCLB Failure | FairTest. (n.d.). The National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from Reback, R. (Director) (2009, August 12). The Effects of No Child Left Behind on School Services and Student Outcomes. NCLB: Emerging Findings Research Conference. Lecture conducted from National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, D.C.. Weingarten, R. (n.d.). AFT's Weingarten: No Child Left Behind Was Doomed By Its Flaws - US News and World Report. US News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and more. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from was-doomed-by-its-flaws Zellmer, M., Frontier, A., & Pheifer, D. (2006). What Are NCLB's Instructional Costs?. Educational Leadership, 64(03), Retrieved November 13, 2012, from