Policy Brief: NCLB

  • 1,905 views
Uploaded on

Review, Analysis, and Recommendations to …

Review, Analysis, and Recommendations to
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,905
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • 03/12/10 Andrew J Schneider
  • 03/12/10 Andrew J Schneider
  • 03/12/10 Andrew J Schneider
  • 03/12/10 Andrew J Schneider
  • 03/12/10 Andrew J Schneider

Transcript

  • 1. Policy Brief: NCLB Review, Analysis, and Recommendations to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
  • 2. Problem Definition
    • Education policy needs to be addressed because there are major, fixable issues with the current law.
    • The problem is widespread; effecting nearly all sub-groups in all 50 states
    • Education policy improvement is imperative and therefore of concern to the public sector because achievement gap on both fronts
      • Achievement gap between disadvantaged students and non-disadvantaged students
      • Achievement gap between public education in America vs. other globalized competing nations
  • 3. What is NCLB?
    • 1965, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
      • Revised every five to seven years
    • 1983, Nation at Risk
      • Nation Commission on Excellence in Education
    • 2002, NCLB signed in to law
      • Goals of NCLB:
        • Close achievement gaps
          • 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2014
        • Create assessment and accountability systems
          • Annual standardized testing for grades 3-8 in reading and math
          • Must make adequate yearly progress (AYP)
  • 4. Causal Model
    • Public education is a public good
    • Performance of our school system has direct consequences for the economy and society at large
    • Education policy should maximize student achievement
    Measured academic achievement Student quality School quality Peer quality
  • 5. Detailed Causal Model with variables Measured academic achievement Student Quality School Quality Peer Quality Innate ability Parental involvement Student effort School resources Leadership quality Teaching quality Parental involvement Peer ability Peer effort
  • 6. Consequences of AYP failure
  • 7. NCLB criticisms: positive
    • Improved test scores
    • Improvement over local standards
    • Increased accountability
    • Attention to minority populations
    • Quality of education
    • School choice
    • Funding
    • Public perception of public education
  • 8. NCLB criticisms: negative
    • “ Gaming” the system
    • Problems with standardized tests
    • Incentives against low-performing students
    • Incentives against gifted, talents, and high-performing students
    • State refusal to produce non-English assessments
    • Narrow curriculum
    • Narrow definition of research
    • Limitations on local control
    • Facilitates military recruitment
    • Variability in a student potential and 100% compliance
  • 9. Major Reform Proposals
    • The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (Oct 2004)
    • The Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind (Feb 2007)
    • Forum on Educational Accountability (June 2007)
  • 10. Propose Course of Action
    • Changes need to be made to NCLB:
        • Realistic goals
          • Research based goals; replace the law’s arbitrary targets with ambitious targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective schools
        • National proficiency standards
          • Provide a standard to be achieved national
          • Provide states flexibility to reach said standard
        • Update annual assessment system
          • Allow for multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to standardized testing
          • Decrease burden of testing by allowing annual testing in selected grades
          • Alter AYP reports to include a “value-added measure”
        • Reconsider sanctions and rewards system
          • Create REAL consequences and rewards
          • Allow for multi year improvement plans
        • Fully fund the law
          • Allocate $50 billion for Title I (compared to $32.3 billion in FY 2009 – including ARRA and RTT funds)
    • Be patient, give NCLB more time
        • NCLB is vastly more ambitious than ESEA of 1965
        • ESEA took a decade before Title I functioned at its authors intended
  • 11. Questions?