Your information is BIASED.
*Although the NCLB Act has introduced "an element of accountability", it already existed before in previous Acts such as the IASA (Improving America's Schools Act), in 1994. The difference is that the goverment with the NCLB Act has enforced it in a federal scale, which is not necessarily positive. Why? Because the corrective actions imposed to failing schools have not considered the local needs to really correct the perfomance gap between white and black, for instance. The AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) tests are inadequate because the States just cannot provide the proper help to the high number of schools that have missed the test's standards. Just look at the nationsreportcard.gov website, you will see the achievement gap between white and black is far from being eliminated until 2014 as the Act has promised. MOREOVER, the proficiency standards are not uniform among different States, which means that States with higher standards will have more failing schools. Thus, the tests do not show if students below proficiency are actually making strides.
* You say the Act has focused attention on under-served groups, but actually its requirement to evaluate school progress on the basis of demographic subgroups have disproportionately penalized schools with diverse student populations, which stimulates segregation. Take a look on "Policy Analysis for California Education", 2003.
Look at the name, "No Child Left Behind"! It's misleading and intended to make promisses the Act could not keep during these 9 years since it has been passed. Actually after the Act has passed, an opinion poll released in December 2003 found that nearly half of school principals and superintendents view the federal legislation as either politically motivated or aimed at undermining public schools
quarta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2011
quinta-feira, 10 de novembro de 2011
More on the affirmative side
Article:
Claims Made in Favor of the NCLB Act
from...Wikipidia.org
* Introduces an element of accountability into public school education and the expenditure of public funds for education.
* Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.
* Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
* Increases the quality of education. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities.
* Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
* Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
* Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
* Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
* Provides more resources to schools.
* Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
* Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.
NCLB Making a Difference in:
Alabama•
Between 2004 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by three percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points(Alabama Report Card)
Alaska•
Between 2002 and 2004 (latest data available):–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Alaska Native-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points–The Alaska Native-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by three percentage points (Alaska Report Card)
Arizona•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available): –Third-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 14 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by 11 percentage points –The American Indian-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points–The American Indian-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by 12 percentage points(Arizona Report Card)
California•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available): –Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by five percentage points (California Report Card)
Delaware•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade reading proficiency increased by seven percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 10 percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by 14 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 13 percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points (Delaware Report Card)
Florida•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 16 percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points(Florida Report Card)
Georgia•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight points percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by six percentage points –The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points –The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by eight percentage points (Georgia Report Card)
Hawaii•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fifth-grade reading achievement increased by 13 percentage points –Fifth-grade mathematics achievement increased by four percentage points (Hawaii Report Card)
Idaho•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 11 percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 13 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by 11 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by seven percentage points (Idaho Report Card)
Kentucky•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by seven percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 12 percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points (Education Trust)
Maryland•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 14 percentage points–Fifth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Latino achievement gap in fifth grade reading narrowed by six percentage points (Maryland Report Card)
Ohio•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 21 percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by 10 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by four percentage points(Ohio Report Card)
Oregon•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 10 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 11 percentage points(Oregon Report Card)
Texas•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by three percentage points –Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 11 percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by seven percentage points(Texas Report Card)
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance, 2004.
This graph shows that on secondary education (per student) the United States spends more than 17 other nations.
Title I Grants for Disadvantaged Children
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that spending on education from all sources—local, state, federal, and others—rose from $249 billion in 1990-91 to $442.7 billion in 2000-01 and $501.3 billion in 2003-04.
No Child Left Behind Funding: 2002-06
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables. Note: FY 2001 is the baseline year—the last year of federal funding for elementary and secondary education prior to funding under NCLB.
Federal Grants to States for Special Education *
* Under IDEA, Part B, Grants to States.
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that federal grants from special education rose from under $250 million in 1977 to $5 billion in 2000 nearly $12 billion in 2005.
NCLB programs in 2006 proposed budget include:
• Title I, the largest federal program, would provide over $13 billion to local districts to improve the academic achievement of children in high-poverty schools.
• Reading First would supply over $1.1 billion to states to promote the use of scientifically based research to provide high-quality reading instruction for grades K-3.
• Improving Teacher Quality Grants would provide states with $2.9 billion for teacher professional development and training.
• English Language Acquisition would provide $675.8 million to states to assist schools in improving the education of limited English-proficient children by teaching them English and helping them meet state academic standards.
• Other NCLB programs include those to support charter schools; strengthen high school education; improve math and science education; support after-school learning programs and assist American Indian, Alaska Native and migrant students.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) assists states and local schools in educating children with disabilities. Grants to States would provide over $11 billion to states and local schools to assist their efforts.
The Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), passed in 2002, created the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which replaced the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The law requires more rigorous standards for the conduct and evaluation of education research. NCLB requires that federal funds support educational activities that are backed by scientifically based research. Through sustained programs of research, evaluation and data collection, IES provides evidence of what works to solve the problems and challenges faced by schools and learners.
The Individualized education programs (IEPs) of students with disabilities should be connected to the state's academic content standards. This IEP linkage — sometimes called “standards-based IEPs”— ensures that students with disabilities are working toward the same state grade-level content and skills as their grade-level peers. The location where students with disabilities receive their specially designed instruction should ensure access to the general curriculum. Access to the general education curriculum means that students with disabilities are actively engaged in learning the content and skills that defy ne the general education curriculum. It isn't enough to simply be placed in the general education classroom — students must be actively engaged in learning the content and skills that define the curriculum.
At the same time, each student's IEP must define how the student will participate in any state and district wide assessments, including the state assessments required by NCLB .
Why can’t adequate yearly progress for students with disabilities be determined by the attainment of their IEP goals?
A. There are several reasons why IEP goals are not appropriate for school
accountability purposes. In general, IEP goals are individualized for each student
and may cover a range of needs beyond reading/language arts and mathematics,
such as behavior and social skills. They are not necessarily aligned with state
standards, and they are not designed to ensure consistent judgments about
schools — a fundamental requirement for AYP determinations. The IEP is used
to provide parents with information about their child’s progress and for making
individualized decisions about the special education and related services a student
needs to succeed. Assessments used for school accountability purposes must be
aligned to state content and achievement standards.
More Connecticut schools meet No Child Left Behind standard
August 12, 2010
By Robert A. Frahm
They will be celebrating this year at Middletown's Woodrow Wilson Middle School, once considered a prime example of why Middletown only two years ago was designated one of the state's most troubled school districts.
For the first time, Wilson met federal school improvement standards, joining a growing list of Connecticut schools cited Wednesday for making adequate yearly progress under the nation's 2002 education reform law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
Nearly three quarters of the state's public schools, or 72 percent, met the NCLB standard, up from 60 percent in 2008 and 2009, according to the State Department of Education.
"Clearly, we see progress in these results," said Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan.
Officials were particularly encouraged by progress made in several of the state's largest and poorest cities, where school districts were singled out two years ago by state education officials for intervention.
Among those districts was Middletown, where schools saw large gains in test results this year among low-income and minority students, groups that traditionally have lagged far behind white and more affluent students.
No Child Left Behind is designed to address that achievement gap by requiring schools to assess progress among groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income children, special education students and children who are learning to speak English.
In Middletown, both of the district's middle schools - along with three elementary schools that are designated in need of improvement - met the standard for yearly progress. If those schools make adequate progress again next year, they will be removed from the "needs improvement" list. It was an encouraging turnaround for a district that state officials identified in 2008 as one of 12 urban districts needing intervention.
"In a way, getting to be one of the dirty dozen was one of the best things that ever happened to us," said Assistant Superintendent Barbara Senges.
The State Department of Education later added three more districts to the list and provided assistance as districts developed improvement strategies. That included consultants who helped revamp curriculum, intensify instruction in reading and mathematics, and zero in more closely on individual student progress.
"If you look at . . . these 15 districts, they are making, for the most part, faster progress than the rest of the state," said Deborah Richards, head of the education department's Bureau of Accountability and Improvement.
Middletown schools established data teams to review student performance, create new tests to measure progress and revise classroom lessons and strategy - all part of the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative, a state-developed model requiring schools to make better use of student performance data.
"We had pre-testing, post-testing," Senges said. "For the first time, [teachers] were all teaching the same thing at the same time."
The biggest gains occurred among low-income and minority students. Among Middletown's black students, 74 percent met the proficiency standard in mathematics on the Connecticut Mastery Test, up from 64 percent a year earlier. In reading, 62 percent of black and low-income children and 63 percent of Hispanic children scored at proficient levels, gains of nine percentage points over last year's results.
"There was a huge closing of the achievement gap that occurred in grades six, seven and eight," Senges said.
Part of the reason, according to Senges, was the introduction of small intervention classes in math and reading for the lowest-performing students.
No one could predict exactly what effect all of the changes would have, but the results are encouraging.
"I was kind of like a doubting Thomas," said Gene Nocera, who retired this year as principal at Woodrow Wilson Middle School. "Of course, I was elated."
Nocera placed much of the credit on the collaboration among teachers. "We completely re-did the teachers' schedules so the teams could meet almost on a daily basis," he said.
Lisa Sherman, an eighth-grade language arts teacher at Wilson, said the increasing focus on data, including frequent testing of student progress, was a key factor in the turnaround. "We were able to immediately see the results of what we were doing, so we were not going on for two weeks or two months doing something that wasn't working," she said.
Christine Salamone, who teaches seventh-grade language arts at Wilson, said she was relieved when she saw the latest test results.
"Sometimes you work really hard at something, and the numbers don't always reflect it," said Salamone, who is starting her 34th year of teaching. "I was proud of my colleagues and myself to be part of something like this."
http://www.ed.gov/teachers-guide-fixing-nclb-0
Glossary
Accommodations
Tools and procedures that provide equal access to instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. Designed to “level the playing field” for students with disabilities, accommodations are generally grouped into the following categories:
• Presentation (e.g., repeat directions, read aloud, use of larger bubbles on answer sheets, etc.)
• Response (e.g., mark answers in book, use reference aids, point, use of computer, etc.)
• Timing/Scheduling (e.g., extended time, frequent breaks, etc.)
• Setting (e.g., study carrel, special lighting, separate room, etc.)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Annual improvement that states, school districts, and schools must make each year in order to reach the NCLB goal of having every student proficient by the year 2014. The AYP requirement holds schools accountable for continuous progress in student achievement.
Annual Statewide Academic Assessment
Another word for student “testing,” annual statewide academic assessments are used to measure student performance and progress. Annual assessments must be aligned with your state’s challenging academic content standards and based on challenging academic achievement standards.
Achievement Data by Subgroup
Student performance data sorted into student subgroups. The NCLB requirement for this disaggregated data is designed to help school districts and schools close the achievement gap between subgroups of children who historically underachieve and their better performing peers. In order to make AYP, schools must test at least 95 percent of their students in each of the subgroups.
Disability Categories
IDEA disability categories include autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment (e.g., asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia), specific learning disability, (e.g., perceptual disabilities, brain Injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, developmental aphasia), speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment (including blindness), and developmental delay.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Special education and related services that are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge to the parent, and that meet the standards of the state education department. Special education and related services must be provided in conformity with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) as required by IDEA.
General Education Curriculum
The body of knowledge and range of skills that all students in the state are expected to master.
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
A written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised according to the requirements of IDEA.
Out-of-Level Testing (OOLT)
Out-of-level testing typically means that a student who is in one grade is assessed using a level of a test developed for students in another grade. Below-grade-level testing is almost universally what is meant when the term “out-of-level testing” is used.
Special Education
Specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and instruction in physical education.
Specially Designed Instruction
Ways that special education professionals adapt the content, methodology (approaches to teaching certain grade level content), or the delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that result from the child’s disability. Specially designed instruction should also ensure that the eligible child has access to the general curriculum so that he or she can meet the educational standards of the school district that apply to all children.
State, District, and School Report Cards
Annual reports that include specific information about the academic achievement of students — both overall and by subgroup — as well as information about teacher qualifications and other indicators of academic quality
How the Blueprint for Reform Empowers Educators
The Blueprint for Reform is designed to meet the needs of students while accomplishing objectives that teachers have been concerned about for a long time.
Respecting Teachers as the Professionals They Are
Our Challenge: We all know that not all teachers are alike, nor should they be. Yet, for too long, many educators have been treated like cogs in the system, interchangeably generic employees whose strengths and contributions go largely unnoticed. Unlike evaluations in other professions, teacher performance reviews don't provide meaningful feedback, and they have little to no impact on your professional development. Furthermore, the most effective teachers are generally not rewarded for doing a great job or for taking on greater responsibilities.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Recognizing the Importance of Teachers. The Blueprint is based on two principles that we all know are true: 1) Great teachers matter; and 2) Not all teachers are equally effective.
Under this plan, teachers are recognized and supported as unique professionals. Principals and other school leaders will take the time (and they should be given the training) to evaluate teachers comprehensively and fairly based on individual performance. The plan proposes that evaluations be based on multiple measures, acknowledge successes, provide meaningful feedback, inform staff development and staffing decisions, offer teachers more responsibility, and compensate them more reasonably. Teachers deserve to be evaluated fairly and paid for the hard work they do.
Broadening the Curriculum
Our Challenge: No Child Left Behind's focus on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has put history, the arts, and other critical subjects on the back burner. Schools spend far too much time on tests and not enough on lessons that foster engagement, critical thinking, and a well-rounded education.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Better Assessments. The Department is investing $350 million in support for states to develop better assessments that measure complex skills, ensuring that students are gaining the knowledge and skills they need in the real world—not just filling in bubbles. New assessments may include performance items, such as portfolios and projects. States are encouraged to work with a coalition of state colleges and universities to create standards that are fair and to ensure that students who meet them have the skills to succeed in college and careers.
Painting With a Broad Brush. The effect of the Blueprint will be to broaden what teachers teach, not limit it. Because most schools will have relief from the relentless emphasis on year-to-year test scores, teachers and principals will be able to focus on ensuring a high-quality education for every student, including long-neglected subjects like art and foreign languages. The Blueprint also will provide funding to support high-quality instruction in these subjects, especially in our highest-need schools. Finally, because states will have the flexibility to include a range of academic subjects in their accountability systems, teachers of these subjects will no longer feel ignored.
Using Data the Right Way
Our Challenge: Teachers can speak for hours about the misuse of testing data: requiring all students to be on the same level all at once, labeling schools and teachers as failures even if scores are growing, using scores as the sole measurement of success, and teaching to the test.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Focus on Growth. The Blueprint for Reform encourages schools to use data in fundamentally different ways. Schools are measured not only by achievement level but also by growth. Under this plan, if a teacher helps a fifth-grade student's reading to move from a second-grade to a fourth-grade level, he or she is not labeled as a failure but as a model for others to emulate. And progress over time will matter—one bad year will no longer cause a school to be identified as "failing" because data from several years are reviewed to determine how a school is doing.
Empowering Teachers and Schools
Our Challenge: While NCLB helped schools to focus on specific student groups, its emphasis was more on punishing than empowering. An effect of the program was that teachers and school leaders lived in fear of not measuring up on a few key tests and of being reprimanded and labeled as failures (or even closed) if students did not score well on tests. If they were identified as "failing," they had no real choices for fixing their plan because the federal government prescribed only one track—"one size fits all."
The Blueprint's New Direction:
More Funds to Reach High Goals. The Blueprint takes a much more positive and empowering position on student achievement. The plan encourages states to adopt rigorous goals for student performance and rewards and provides incentives for accomplishing those goals and for showing progress. What's more, districts interested in reform can compete for additional funding—beyond what they currently receive through regular (formula) programs—to achieve their goals through grant programs, such as Race to the Top, Promise Neighborhoods, and Investing in Innovation. Our plan will maintain funding from regular, core programs such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In fact the president's budget includes a historic increase in funding for K-12 education, of which approximately 80 percent will be for these kinds of existing programs.
Fewer Restrictions About How to Get There. In the past, schools not making AYP were required to follow prescribed programs, but the Blueprint strategy is more fluid, offering school systems an array of local choices and control. While maintaining a high bar for accountability, it recognizes that what works in a rural school, for example, may not work in urban areas or other regions.
Making a Bold Case for Reform
Our Challenge: There have been so many reforms proposed over the last few decades that teachers may feel at times like they are just going through the latest motions, checking off the latest "to do" items on an agenda that merely patches problems in education without a clear sense of purpose or direction.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
A World-Class Education. The president's reform agenda calls on teachers to take even more bold and courageous steps to completely transform what we offer students in this country so that all have equal access to a quality education. Others may see the goal of preparing every student for college or career as pie in the sky, but President Obama believes that education is a great equalizer. Skeptics say we must first solve our country's economic problems, but the president knows that we have to educate ourselves into economic security.
What teachers say they like most about the Blueprint is that it asks them to deeply examine their practice and to be willing to improve it to meet the needs of students today. The Blueprint challenges us all to live what we believe—that all students can learn and that they are all worth our investment.
Conclusions
Nclb has been successful helping schools to collect and report data about student achievement and to focus on making improvements to long neglected student groups such as 1. Economically disadvantage students, 2. English learners, 3. Students with disabilities.
Claims Made in Favor of the NCLB Act
from...Wikipidia.org
* Introduces an element of accountability into public school education and the expenditure of public funds for education.
* Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.
* Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
* Increases the quality of education. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities.
* Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
* Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
* Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
* Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
* Provides more resources to schools.
* Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
* Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.
NCLB Making a Difference in:
Alabama•
Between 2004 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by three percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points(Alabama Report Card)
Alaska•
Between 2002 and 2004 (latest data available):–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Alaska Native-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points–The Alaska Native-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by three percentage points (Alaska Report Card)
Arizona•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available): –Third-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 14 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by 11 percentage points –The American Indian-white achievement gap in third-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points–The American Indian-white achievement gap in third-grade mathematics narrowed by 12 percentage points(Arizona Report Card)
California•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available): –Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by five percentage points (California Report Card)
Delaware•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade reading proficiency increased by seven percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 10 percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by 14 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 13 percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points–The poor-not poor achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points (Delaware Report Card)
Florida•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 16 percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points(Florida Report Card)
Georgia•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight points percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by six percentage points –The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points –The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by eight percentage points (Georgia Report Card)
Hawaii•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest available data):–Fifth-grade reading achievement increased by 13 percentage points –Fifth-grade mathematics achievement increased by four percentage points (Hawaii Report Card)
Idaho•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 11 percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 13 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by 11 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by nine percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by seven percentage points (Idaho Report Card)
Kentucky•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by seven percentage points–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 12 percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by three percentage points –The poor-not poor achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points (Education Trust)
Maryland•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 14 percentage points–Fifth-grade reading proficiency increased by eight percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by seven percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Latino achievement gap in fifth grade reading narrowed by six percentage points (Maryland Report Card)
Ohio•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 21 percentage points–Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by eight percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by 10 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by four percentage points(Ohio Report Card)
Oregon•
Between 2002 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by nine percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by six percentage points–The black-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 10 percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by five percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by 11 percentage points(Oregon Report Card)
Texas•
Between 2003 and 2005 (latest data available):–Fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by three percentage points –Fourth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 11 percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points –The black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points–The Hispanic-white achievement gap in fourth-grade mathematics narrowed by seven percentage points(Texas Report Card)
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance, 2004.
This graph shows that on secondary education (per student) the United States spends more than 17 other nations.
Title I Grants for Disadvantaged Children
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that spending on education from all sources—local, state, federal, and others—rose from $249 billion in 1990-91 to $442.7 billion in 2000-01 and $501.3 billion in 2003-04.
No Child Left Behind Funding: 2002-06
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables. Note: FY 2001 is the baseline year—the last year of federal funding for elementary and secondary education prior to funding under NCLB.
Federal Grants to States for Special Education *
* Under IDEA, Part B, Grants to States.
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that federal grants from special education rose from under $250 million in 1977 to $5 billion in 2000 nearly $12 billion in 2005.
NCLB programs in 2006 proposed budget include:
• Title I, the largest federal program, would provide over $13 billion to local districts to improve the academic achievement of children in high-poverty schools.
• Reading First would supply over $1.1 billion to states to promote the use of scientifically based research to provide high-quality reading instruction for grades K-3.
• Improving Teacher Quality Grants would provide states with $2.9 billion for teacher professional development and training.
• English Language Acquisition would provide $675.8 million to states to assist schools in improving the education of limited English-proficient children by teaching them English and helping them meet state academic standards.
• Other NCLB programs include those to support charter schools; strengthen high school education; improve math and science education; support after-school learning programs and assist American Indian, Alaska Native and migrant students.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) assists states and local schools in educating children with disabilities. Grants to States would provide over $11 billion to states and local schools to assist their efforts.
The Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), passed in 2002, created the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which replaced the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The law requires more rigorous standards for the conduct and evaluation of education research. NCLB requires that federal funds support educational activities that are backed by scientifically based research. Through sustained programs of research, evaluation and data collection, IES provides evidence of what works to solve the problems and challenges faced by schools and learners.
The Individualized education programs (IEPs) of students with disabilities should be connected to the state's academic content standards. This IEP linkage — sometimes called “standards-based IEPs”— ensures that students with disabilities are working toward the same state grade-level content and skills as their grade-level peers. The location where students with disabilities receive their specially designed instruction should ensure access to the general curriculum. Access to the general education curriculum means that students with disabilities are actively engaged in learning the content and skills that defy ne the general education curriculum. It isn't enough to simply be placed in the general education classroom — students must be actively engaged in learning the content and skills that define the curriculum.
At the same time, each student's IEP must define how the student will participate in any state and district wide assessments, including the state assessments required by NCLB .
Why can’t adequate yearly progress for students with disabilities be determined by the attainment of their IEP goals?
A. There are several reasons why IEP goals are not appropriate for school
accountability purposes. In general, IEP goals are individualized for each student
and may cover a range of needs beyond reading/language arts and mathematics,
such as behavior and social skills. They are not necessarily aligned with state
standards, and they are not designed to ensure consistent judgments about
schools — a fundamental requirement for AYP determinations. The IEP is used
to provide parents with information about their child’s progress and for making
individualized decisions about the special education and related services a student
needs to succeed. Assessments used for school accountability purposes must be
aligned to state content and achievement standards.
More Connecticut schools meet No Child Left Behind standard
August 12, 2010
By Robert A. Frahm
They will be celebrating this year at Middletown's Woodrow Wilson Middle School, once considered a prime example of why Middletown only two years ago was designated one of the state's most troubled school districts.
For the first time, Wilson met federal school improvement standards, joining a growing list of Connecticut schools cited Wednesday for making adequate yearly progress under the nation's 2002 education reform law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
Nearly three quarters of the state's public schools, or 72 percent, met the NCLB standard, up from 60 percent in 2008 and 2009, according to the State Department of Education.
"Clearly, we see progress in these results," said Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan.
Officials were particularly encouraged by progress made in several of the state's largest and poorest cities, where school districts were singled out two years ago by state education officials for intervention.
Among those districts was Middletown, where schools saw large gains in test results this year among low-income and minority students, groups that traditionally have lagged far behind white and more affluent students.
No Child Left Behind is designed to address that achievement gap by requiring schools to assess progress among groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income children, special education students and children who are learning to speak English.
In Middletown, both of the district's middle schools - along with three elementary schools that are designated in need of improvement - met the standard for yearly progress. If those schools make adequate progress again next year, they will be removed from the "needs improvement" list. It was an encouraging turnaround for a district that state officials identified in 2008 as one of 12 urban districts needing intervention.
"In a way, getting to be one of the dirty dozen was one of the best things that ever happened to us," said Assistant Superintendent Barbara Senges.
The State Department of Education later added three more districts to the list and provided assistance as districts developed improvement strategies. That included consultants who helped revamp curriculum, intensify instruction in reading and mathematics, and zero in more closely on individual student progress.
"If you look at . . . these 15 districts, they are making, for the most part, faster progress than the rest of the state," said Deborah Richards, head of the education department's Bureau of Accountability and Improvement.
Middletown schools established data teams to review student performance, create new tests to measure progress and revise classroom lessons and strategy - all part of the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative, a state-developed model requiring schools to make better use of student performance data.
"We had pre-testing, post-testing," Senges said. "For the first time, [teachers] were all teaching the same thing at the same time."
The biggest gains occurred among low-income and minority students. Among Middletown's black students, 74 percent met the proficiency standard in mathematics on the Connecticut Mastery Test, up from 64 percent a year earlier. In reading, 62 percent of black and low-income children and 63 percent of Hispanic children scored at proficient levels, gains of nine percentage points over last year's results.
"There was a huge closing of the achievement gap that occurred in grades six, seven and eight," Senges said.
Part of the reason, according to Senges, was the introduction of small intervention classes in math and reading for the lowest-performing students.
No one could predict exactly what effect all of the changes would have, but the results are encouraging.
"I was kind of like a doubting Thomas," said Gene Nocera, who retired this year as principal at Woodrow Wilson Middle School. "Of course, I was elated."
Nocera placed much of the credit on the collaboration among teachers. "We completely re-did the teachers' schedules so the teams could meet almost on a daily basis," he said.
Lisa Sherman, an eighth-grade language arts teacher at Wilson, said the increasing focus on data, including frequent testing of student progress, was a key factor in the turnaround. "We were able to immediately see the results of what we were doing, so we were not going on for two weeks or two months doing something that wasn't working," she said.
Christine Salamone, who teaches seventh-grade language arts at Wilson, said she was relieved when she saw the latest test results.
"Sometimes you work really hard at something, and the numbers don't always reflect it," said Salamone, who is starting her 34th year of teaching. "I was proud of my colleagues and myself to be part of something like this."
http://www.ed.gov/teachers-guide-fixing-nclb-0
Glossary
Accommodations
Tools and procedures that provide equal access to instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. Designed to “level the playing field” for students with disabilities, accommodations are generally grouped into the following categories:
• Presentation (e.g., repeat directions, read aloud, use of larger bubbles on answer sheets, etc.)
• Response (e.g., mark answers in book, use reference aids, point, use of computer, etc.)
• Timing/Scheduling (e.g., extended time, frequent breaks, etc.)
• Setting (e.g., study carrel, special lighting, separate room, etc.)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Annual improvement that states, school districts, and schools must make each year in order to reach the NCLB goal of having every student proficient by the year 2014. The AYP requirement holds schools accountable for continuous progress in student achievement.
Annual Statewide Academic Assessment
Another word for student “testing,” annual statewide academic assessments are used to measure student performance and progress. Annual assessments must be aligned with your state’s challenging academic content standards and based on challenging academic achievement standards.
Achievement Data by Subgroup
Student performance data sorted into student subgroups. The NCLB requirement for this disaggregated data is designed to help school districts and schools close the achievement gap between subgroups of children who historically underachieve and their better performing peers. In order to make AYP, schools must test at least 95 percent of their students in each of the subgroups.
Disability Categories
IDEA disability categories include autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment (e.g., asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia), specific learning disability, (e.g., perceptual disabilities, brain Injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, developmental aphasia), speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment (including blindness), and developmental delay.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Special education and related services that are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge to the parent, and that meet the standards of the state education department. Special education and related services must be provided in conformity with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) as required by IDEA.
General Education Curriculum
The body of knowledge and range of skills that all students in the state are expected to master.
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
A written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised according to the requirements of IDEA.
Out-of-Level Testing (OOLT)
Out-of-level testing typically means that a student who is in one grade is assessed using a level of a test developed for students in another grade. Below-grade-level testing is almost universally what is meant when the term “out-of-level testing” is used.
Special Education
Specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and instruction in physical education.
Specially Designed Instruction
Ways that special education professionals adapt the content, methodology (approaches to teaching certain grade level content), or the delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that result from the child’s disability. Specially designed instruction should also ensure that the eligible child has access to the general curriculum so that he or she can meet the educational standards of the school district that apply to all children.
State, District, and School Report Cards
Annual reports that include specific information about the academic achievement of students — both overall and by subgroup — as well as information about teacher qualifications and other indicators of academic quality
How the Blueprint for Reform Empowers Educators
The Blueprint for Reform is designed to meet the needs of students while accomplishing objectives that teachers have been concerned about for a long time.
Respecting Teachers as the Professionals They Are
Our Challenge: We all know that not all teachers are alike, nor should they be. Yet, for too long, many educators have been treated like cogs in the system, interchangeably generic employees whose strengths and contributions go largely unnoticed. Unlike evaluations in other professions, teacher performance reviews don't provide meaningful feedback, and they have little to no impact on your professional development. Furthermore, the most effective teachers are generally not rewarded for doing a great job or for taking on greater responsibilities.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Recognizing the Importance of Teachers. The Blueprint is based on two principles that we all know are true: 1) Great teachers matter; and 2) Not all teachers are equally effective.
Under this plan, teachers are recognized and supported as unique professionals. Principals and other school leaders will take the time (and they should be given the training) to evaluate teachers comprehensively and fairly based on individual performance. The plan proposes that evaluations be based on multiple measures, acknowledge successes, provide meaningful feedback, inform staff development and staffing decisions, offer teachers more responsibility, and compensate them more reasonably. Teachers deserve to be evaluated fairly and paid for the hard work they do.
Broadening the Curriculum
Our Challenge: No Child Left Behind's focus on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has put history, the arts, and other critical subjects on the back burner. Schools spend far too much time on tests and not enough on lessons that foster engagement, critical thinking, and a well-rounded education.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Better Assessments. The Department is investing $350 million in support for states to develop better assessments that measure complex skills, ensuring that students are gaining the knowledge and skills they need in the real world—not just filling in bubbles. New assessments may include performance items, such as portfolios and projects. States are encouraged to work with a coalition of state colleges and universities to create standards that are fair and to ensure that students who meet them have the skills to succeed in college and careers.
Painting With a Broad Brush. The effect of the Blueprint will be to broaden what teachers teach, not limit it. Because most schools will have relief from the relentless emphasis on year-to-year test scores, teachers and principals will be able to focus on ensuring a high-quality education for every student, including long-neglected subjects like art and foreign languages. The Blueprint also will provide funding to support high-quality instruction in these subjects, especially in our highest-need schools. Finally, because states will have the flexibility to include a range of academic subjects in their accountability systems, teachers of these subjects will no longer feel ignored.
Using Data the Right Way
Our Challenge: Teachers can speak for hours about the misuse of testing data: requiring all students to be on the same level all at once, labeling schools and teachers as failures even if scores are growing, using scores as the sole measurement of success, and teaching to the test.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
Focus on Growth. The Blueprint for Reform encourages schools to use data in fundamentally different ways. Schools are measured not only by achievement level but also by growth. Under this plan, if a teacher helps a fifth-grade student's reading to move from a second-grade to a fourth-grade level, he or she is not labeled as a failure but as a model for others to emulate. And progress over time will matter—one bad year will no longer cause a school to be identified as "failing" because data from several years are reviewed to determine how a school is doing.
Empowering Teachers and Schools
Our Challenge: While NCLB helped schools to focus on specific student groups, its emphasis was more on punishing than empowering. An effect of the program was that teachers and school leaders lived in fear of not measuring up on a few key tests and of being reprimanded and labeled as failures (or even closed) if students did not score well on tests. If they were identified as "failing," they had no real choices for fixing their plan because the federal government prescribed only one track—"one size fits all."
The Blueprint's New Direction:
More Funds to Reach High Goals. The Blueprint takes a much more positive and empowering position on student achievement. The plan encourages states to adopt rigorous goals for student performance and rewards and provides incentives for accomplishing those goals and for showing progress. What's more, districts interested in reform can compete for additional funding—beyond what they currently receive through regular (formula) programs—to achieve their goals through grant programs, such as Race to the Top, Promise Neighborhoods, and Investing in Innovation. Our plan will maintain funding from regular, core programs such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In fact the president's budget includes a historic increase in funding for K-12 education, of which approximately 80 percent will be for these kinds of existing programs.
Fewer Restrictions About How to Get There. In the past, schools not making AYP were required to follow prescribed programs, but the Blueprint strategy is more fluid, offering school systems an array of local choices and control. While maintaining a high bar for accountability, it recognizes that what works in a rural school, for example, may not work in urban areas or other regions.
Making a Bold Case for Reform
Our Challenge: There have been so many reforms proposed over the last few decades that teachers may feel at times like they are just going through the latest motions, checking off the latest "to do" items on an agenda that merely patches problems in education without a clear sense of purpose or direction.
The Blueprint's New Direction:
A World-Class Education. The president's reform agenda calls on teachers to take even more bold and courageous steps to completely transform what we offer students in this country so that all have equal access to a quality education. Others may see the goal of preparing every student for college or career as pie in the sky, but President Obama believes that education is a great equalizer. Skeptics say we must first solve our country's economic problems, but the president knows that we have to educate ourselves into economic security.
What teachers say they like most about the Blueprint is that it asks them to deeply examine their practice and to be willing to improve it to meet the needs of students today. The Blueprint challenges us all to live what we believe—that all students can learn and that they are all worth our investment.
Conclusions
Nclb has been successful helping schools to collect and report data about student achievement and to focus on making improvements to long neglected student groups such as 1. Economically disadvantage students, 2. English learners, 3. Students with disabilities.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)