PURPOSE OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

1
No Child Left Behind Basics and
Implications Adapted from MAISA, AASA (Bruce
Hunter), NSBA, and USDOE
2
Purpose

• Close the achievement gap withaccountability,
  flexibility, parental choices,and research-based
  reforms

3
Goals

• ALL students will attain proficiency or betterin
  reading and mathematics by 2013-2014
• ALL limited English students will
  becomeproficient in English
• ALL teachers will be highly qualifiedby
  2005-2006
• ALL students will be educated in safe,drug-free
  environments
• ALL students will graduate from high school

4
Key Points

• Accountability
• Teacher Quality
• Options and Choices for Parents
• Instructional Methods

5
Accountability

• Statewide accountability system- Education
  YES!
• Testing requirements
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• Consequences
• Public reporting

6
Testing Requirements

• States administer own tests
• Annual assessments grades 3-8
• Participate in NAEP
• Assess limited English students

7
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

• Progress must be made overall for school and
  subgroups
• Schools must meet annual state objectives for
  progress (state raises the bar incrementally)
• All students must be proficient in 12 years
• Ninety-five percent of all students must be
  included in the assessment
• If one group fails to meet its AYP objective, the
  school and/or district fails to meet its AYP
  objective
• Consequences for Title I schools not making AYP

8
Consequences

• Each consecutive year, correctiveactions become
  more intensive
• School improvement planning
• School choice and transportation
• Supplemental services
• Replace relevant staff
• Implement new curriculum
• Extend school day
• Restructuring of school governance
  and/or operation
• Reopen school as charter school
• Restructuring/external takeover

9
Safe Harbor Provision

• Requires each subgroup of students to meet AYP
  objectives/intermediate goals
• Overall progress being made, but one or more
  subgroups fails to make progress
• Percentage of students in the subgroup(s) who
  failed to reach to proficient declined by 10
  percent
• Demonstrated progress on additional indicators
• Targeted increase in graduation (SS)
• Other academic indicator (ES)

10
Public Reporting

• State Report Card must include
• Disaggregation of student MEAP data
• Comparison of student achievement levels
• Percentage of students not tested
• Graduation rates
• Number and names of schools in need of
  improvement
• Comparison of actual academic achievement to
  annual objectives for all subgroups
• Teacher qualifications

11
Public Reporting

• School and district report cards must include
• Same information as in state report card, applied
  to the district and individual schools
• Comparison of student scores on state assessments
  with other students within the district and state

• Parent notification on
• Teacher qualification, school choice information,
  LEP placement program

12
Key Points

• Accountability
• Teacher Quality
• Options and Choices for Parents
• Instructional Methods

13
Teacher Quality

• Highly qualified staff
• New Title I teachers starting in 2002-03
• All teachers by 2005-06
• Highly Qualified means
• At least a bachelors degree
• Major in area teaching or an elementary degree
  (elementary teachers)
• Full certificate from the state
• Demonstrated competence (rigorous examination)

14
Teacher Quality

• As of January 8, 2002, new paraprofessional hires
  must have earned a high school diploma AND must
  have
• Completed at least two years of study at a higher
  education institution, or
• Obtained at least an associates degree, or
• Met a rigorous standard of quality and can
  demonstrate through a formal state or local
  academic assessment
• Paraprofessionals hired prior to January 8, 2002
  must meet the qualifications by January 8, 2006

15
Key Points

• Accountability
• Teacher Quality
• Options and Choices for Parents
• Instructional Methods

16
Options/Parent Choices

• All Title I schools
• Increased parent notification and reporting
• Parental involvement
• improvement planning
• workshops-helping kids
• School Improvement status schools
• School choice and transportation
• Supplemental services provided outsidethe school
  day

17
Key Points

• Accountability
• Teacher Quality
• Options and Choices for Parents
• Instructional Methods

18
Instructional Methods

• Resources concentrated on scientific,research-bas
  ed programs
• Characteristics of scientific research-based
  studies
• Uses scientific method
• Has been replicated
• Can be generalized to larger population
• Meets rigorous standards
• Other studies/programs point to same conclusion

19
Implications

• Bruce Hunter, Associate Executive Director for
  Public Policy, AASA
• Landmark change in the mission of public
  education--shifts focus from equal opportunity
  for all students to achievement by all students
  of new educational standards.
• Inaccurate or misinformation--need to
  continually set the record straight.

20
Implications (Hunter)

• Successful Implementation Requires
• An accountability system that supports
  improvement of instruction
• An accurate score keeping system
• Implementation (of the penalties) that focus on
  improved student achievement rather than
  punishing educators
• Improve knowledge skills of teachers and
  paraprofessionals
• Ensure public confidence/trust in schools
• Scientifically-based methods materials
• Leverage NCLB funding flexibility
• Compliance on additional mandates

21
Implications (Hunter)

• Additional Mandates
• Prayer in school
• Equal access to public school facilities (BSA
  Equal Access Act)
• Armed Forces recruiter access
• Student Privacy

22
Implications (Hunter)

• Adequate Yearly Progress
• Urge states to fairly sort out difference between
  the law and the proposed regulations
  (consequences)
• Method to compute AYP can unduly increase failure
• Complexity of District AYP
• Fair accountability system at state level
• Test that support instruction
• Clarity regarding testing special ed student

23
Implications for WISD

• Achievement Initiatives Team Student Services
• Leverage Conference on Teaching Learning Big
  Ideas to support improved student achievement
• Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment
• Improvement planning
• Education YES! (accountability system)
• Professional development
• Education Support Admin Services
• Data collection/management
• Consolidated grants/MEGs
• Reporting (information and public relations)
• Government relations

24
Information

• MDE website www.michigan.gov/mde
• US Department of Education NCLB
  websitewww.nochildleftbehind.gov
• House Committee on Education Workforce
  websitehttp//edworkforce.house.gov (thorough
  QA document)
• NASDSE website www.nasdse.org(Special
  Education implications)
• North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
  website www.ncrel.org (dates, timelines and
  policy issues by state)
• Education Commission of the States
  websitewww.ecs.org
• Email questions to ESEA_at_michigan.gov