NCLB Reauthorization  Miller-McKeon draft quick takes Sherman Dorn University of South Florida
No Child Left Behind: Central Features <ul><li>Requires annual assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies problem schools bas...
Major criticisms <ul><li>Implementation problems </li></ul><ul><li>Allegations of loopholes </li></ul><ul><li>Arguments th...
Implementation problems? <ul><li>Assessing achievement status v. growth </li></ul><ul><li>English language learners </li><...
Loopholes? <ul><li>States can set low standards </li></ul><ul><li>States can define group size necessary to report achieve...
Wrong direction? <ul><li>Arbitrary proficiency levels </li></ul><ul><li>Fantasy of 100% proficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Race...
Miller-McKeon draft
Not addressed in draft <ul><li>Test preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention as punishment </li></ul><ul><li>20% set-asi...
Substantively addressed <ul><li>AYP </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum narrowing </li></ul><ul><li>Graduation rate </li></ul><ul...
Uncertain whether  draft addresses… <ul><li>Test quality </li></ul><ul><li>Tutoring quality </li></ul><ul><li>High-quality...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Miller Mc Keon Draft Summary

584 views

Published on

summary of Miller McKeon (to be matched to mp3 in slideshare)

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
584
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
32
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Miller Mc Keon Draft Summary

    1. 1. NCLB Reauthorization Miller-McKeon draft quick takes Sherman Dorn University of South Florida
    2. 2. No Child Left Behind: Central Features <ul><li>Requires annual assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies problem schools based on test scores (Adequate Yearly Progress) </li></ul><ul><li>Requires menu of remediation for schools labeled as “needs improvement” </li></ul><ul><li>Defines “highly qualified teacher” </li></ul>
    3. 3. Major criticisms <ul><li>Implementation problems </li></ul><ul><li>Allegations of loopholes </li></ul><ul><li>Arguments that NCLB is the wrong direction </li></ul>
    4. 4. Implementation problems? <ul><li>Assessing achievement status v. growth </li></ul><ul><li>English language learners </li></ul><ul><li>Students with disabilities </li></ul><ul><li>One subgroup below AYP standard vs. the whole school </li></ul><ul><li>Sequence and quality of interventions </li></ul><ul><li>20% set-aside for transfers and tutoring </li></ul><ul><li>High-quality teacher definitions </li></ul>
    5. 5. Loopholes? <ul><li>States can set low standards </li></ul><ul><li>States can define group size necessary to report achievement </li></ul><ul><li>States can define graduation rate </li></ul><ul><li>States made school choice and tutoring difficult </li></ul><ul><li>States and districts can choose vague options when schools have repeatedly failed </li></ul><ul><li>States avoid high-quality teacher requirement </li></ul>
    6. 6. Wrong direction? <ul><li>Arbitrary proficiency levels </li></ul><ul><li>Fantasy of 100% proficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Race to the bottom on test quality </li></ul><ul><li>Narrowing the curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Test preparation and triage </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention as punishment </li></ul><ul><li>Relies on schools to solve social ills </li></ul>
    7. 7. Miller-McKeon draft
    8. 8. Not addressed in draft <ul><li>Test preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention as punishment </li></ul><ul><li>20% set-asides for intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Arbitrary proficiency levels </li></ul>
    9. 9. Substantively addressed <ul><li>AYP </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum narrowing </li></ul><ul><li>Graduation rate </li></ul><ul><li>Problems v. crises </li></ul><ul><li>Formative assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Data analysis and capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Subgroup size </li></ul><ul><li>ELL assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Students with disabilities (assessment and expectations) </li></ul><ul><li>Supplement-not-supplant </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher quality distribution </li></ul>
    10. 10. Uncertain whether draft addresses… <ul><li>Test quality </li></ul><ul><li>Tutoring quality </li></ul><ul><li>High-quality teacher definition </li></ul><ul><li>Triage </li></ul>

    ×