No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Accountability Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Presented.
Advertisements

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 Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
NCLB Basics From “What Parents of Students with Disabilities Need to Know & Do” National Center on Educational Outcomes University of Minnesota
Before IDEA One in five children with disabilities was educated. One in five children with disabilities was educated. More than 1 million children with.
Ensuring Effective Services to Immigrant &/or LEP/ELL Children & Families: It’s Right, & It’s the Law! © Statewide Parent Advocacy Network.
BIE Flexibility Request Summary of Key Provisions Bureau of Indian Education U.S. Department of the Interior.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Determining Validity For Oklahoma’s Educational Accountability System Prepared for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Oklahoma State.
1 Utah Performance Assessment System for Students U-PASS Accountability Plan Judy W. Park Assessment & Accountability Director Utah State Office of Education.
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.
Prepared by Jan Sheinker, Ed.D Points of view or opinions expressed in the paper are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Education, or Offices.
Who Are The “2% Students” …eligible to be judged as proficient based on modified grade-level academic achievement standards? Naomi Zigmond University of.
English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) for English Language Learners (ELLs) Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau of Teaching Learning and.
The Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test Michele Hunter Supervisor of Curriculum and Instruction Mobile County Public Schools.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
Chapter 2 Ensuring Progress in the General Curriculum Through Universal Design for Learning and Inclusion Each Power Point presentation can be viewed as.
Creating Assessments with English Language Learners in Mind In this module we will examine: Who are English Language Learners (ELL) and how are they identified?
No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities Presentation for OSEP Staff March 20, 2003 Stephanie Lee Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Exploring Alternate AYP Designs for Assessment and Accountability Systems 1 Dr. J.P. Beaudoin, CEO, Research in Action, Inc. Dr. Patricia Abeyta, Bureau.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
Presentation on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act “No Child Left Behind” Nicholas C. Donohue, Commissioner of Education New Hampshire Department.
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.
IDEA and NCLB Standards-Based Accountability Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Marjorie Hall Haley, PhD - GMU1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
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.
The Do’s and Don’ts of High-Stakes Student Achievement Testing Andrew Porter Vanderbilt University August 2006.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
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)
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Using Assessments to Plan for Learning MEAP and MME Data Collection.
Ensuring Progress in the General Education Curriculum ED 222 Spring 2010.
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.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
GEORGIA’S CRITERION-REFERENCED COMPETENCY TESTS (CRCT) Questions and Answers for Parents of Georgia Students February 11, 2009 Presented by: MCES.
1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The reauthorized elementary and secondary education act.
C R E S S T / CU University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Measuring Adequate Yearly.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
6/14/2016 “A Horse of a Different Color” No Child Left Behind and Accountability The State Testing Program Louisiana.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Breakout Discussion: Every Student Succeeds Act - Scott Norton Council of Chief State School Officers.
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
American Institutes for Research
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Analysis of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA):
Presentation transcript:

No Child Left Behind Impact on Gwinnett County Public Schools’ Students and Schools

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001  Signed into law, January 2002  Reauthorizes Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965

Major Provisions  All children achieve to high standards  Accountability for results  State and local flexibility  Focus on what works: scientifically based research  Public school choice

Title I: Standards and Assessment  Founded on 1994 Improving America Schools Act which:  Assessed reading and mathematics annually at each school level  Aligned with state content standards  Included multiple measures, higher order thinking skills  Assessed all students with accommodations, as needed  Produced aggregated results

NCLB - Standards and Assessment  Requires content and performance standards that define the knowledge and skills expected for all students in the grade or high school level  Adds assessments at each grade level, 3-8 in reading/language arts and mathematics and once in high school  Adds science assessments at each of three school levels (3-5, 6-9, 10-12)  Requires assessment scores (cut scores) that differentiate among 2 levels of high achievement and one of lower achievement

“All students” means  All public school students including students who are:  Enrolled in the regular instructional program  Identified as students with disabilities with reasonable accommodations (IDEA or 504)  Identified as students with disabilities whose IEP team determines they cannot participate in a regular assessment and must have an alternate BUT ………………

“All students” means  Students whose IEP team determines that s/he cannot participate in a regular assessment but the alternate assessment must provide results in at least reading/language arts, mathematics and science. And……….

“All students” means  Limited English proficient students:  With reasonable accommodations  Who cannot be waivered or deferred  To the extent practicable, who will be assessed in the language and form likely to yield accurate and reliable information  Who will be assessed in English language proficiency each year

“All students” means  Migrant children  Mobile children, and  Homeless children

State assessment systems must:  Address the breadth and depth of the State’s academic content standards  Be valid, reliable and of high technical quality  Express student results in terms of achievement of state standards  Be coherent across grades and subjects  Be criterion- referenced or augmented norm-referenced that yield results on performance against state standards

Assessment results must:  Be reported each year  Be disaggregated by gender, racial and ethnic groups, English proficiency, migrant status, students with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged  Include 95% of each group  Provide itemized score analysis

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)  Has yet to be defined (May 2002 draft rules)  Includes assessment results that may be averaged over 3 years and across grades  Requires inclusion of progress of all subgroups if the number in the subgroup yields statistically reliable information

Adequate Yearly Progress  Needs to bring all students to proficient within 12 years  Must include one other non-assessment indicator that may include more schools in improvement, but not reduce assessment criteria  Provides transition year for schools currently designated for improvement for an additional year

Schools who do not make AYP  After 2 years is identified as “school improvement”  Another year without AYP, 2 nd year of school improvement  Corrective Action, 3 rd year  Restructuring, 4 th year  Requires technical assistance, school choice  Requires technical assistance, school choice and supplemental services  Principal and some staff may be replaced, extend school day or year  All staff may be replaced and/or state takes over

Intended Results  All students proficient in reading/language arts, mathematics and science, AND  No child left behind