Transcript Slide 1

What is in a name?
No Child Left Behind
Race to the Top
Secretary Arne Duncan
RAISING THE BAR & CLOSING GAPS
• http://vimeo.com/7905225
Arne Duncan Incentives of Race to the Top
•
2:28 seconds
“Softening of sanctions”
• Provide rewards
• Raise bar—everyone ready for college
• Link merit pay for teachers to test scores
• Give teachers more autonomy
• Drastic measures for bottom 1% of schools
•
http://learningmatters.tv/blog/on-the-newshour/race-to-the-top-the-race-is-on-pt2/3758/
A Nation at Risk (1983)
• Prioritizes ECONOMIC needs of the
nation
– For public benefit, schools
should provide manpower to help
get America out of recession and
keep jobs in America.
– Help America deal with the threat
of global competition
– Blamed schools, contributed to
economic decline
What contributes to economic decline?
Concludes schools are in crisis.
In need of major reform.
1983
A Nation At Risk 1983
“Our society is being
eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens
our very future as a nation
and a people.”
Schools should change …
• Graduation Requirements
• Curriculum Content
• Higher
Standards/Expectations
• More Time-day/Year
• Improve Teaching
• Hold Leadership
Accountable
States do respond
A NATION AT RISK REPORTED
A Nation at Risk (1983) led to No Child Left Behind
Which made all of these views FEDERAL MANDATES
Attitude?
• Schools have “squandered the gains in student achievement in the wake of the
Sputnik challenge (1957)”
– Low quality teaching
– Not rigorous academic content
• Did not discuss past policies like tracking that had divided students or views
about IQ that had limited students’ opportunities to learn,
• Regards schools as a monopoly that lacked competition to force higher
performance
– Common school (public) no longer best kind of school-vouchers discussed
– Cannot trust localities and states
– Schools did not need more $ money
1980s through today—
driving forces in school reform—away from
poverty, equity, and dismantling segregated
schools
• Schools as monopolies without competition to
make them improve (business principle),
should develop models of competition
• HIGHER STANDARDS
Philosophy of REAGAN’S Neo-conservatism
Business Model for Economic Purposes
• HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE
• HIGH STAKES TESTING
President Bush’s (1988-1992) and
President Clinton’s (1992-2000) education plan
America 2000 and Goals 2000
• RECOMMENDATIONS for
states to raise standards
and demonstrate
proficiency in grades 4, 8,
and 12
• Incorporated 1990s THEMES:
– ACCOUNTABILITY
– HIGH STANDARDS
– But left individual STATES
IN CHARGE
• Limited FUNDS
Major shift in policy: How did Federal policy in the
1980s change how we viewed the purposes and
strengths of the COMMON SCHOOL?
REAGAN’S NEO-CONSERVATIVE IDEAS that connect
school operations to economic needs and business
practices and ideas.
1. Promotes the free market system, where competition
would pressure schools to improve.
2. Schools called monopolies, with no incentives to
perform well.
3. Assumes that private schools are better
4. Seeks to give parents CHOICE (NCLB choice out of
failiing schools)
5. To return “school” tax dollars to parents (vouchers) .
6. Seeks to expand alternative approaches—like
allowing for-profit companies take over schools or
districts.
7. Get away from the bureaucracy (idea of charter
schools). (Spring, Chapter 6, Local Control, Choice)
Overarching Idea
Competition
Improves learning
Why did Illinois set new standards in the 1990s?
In response to:
1983 A Nation at Risk Report and 1990s Federal policies
• 1983 “A Nation at Risk”--blamed schools for economic woes,
pushed for higher standards and encouraged states to hold schools
accountable.
• 1990s Federal Policies--Bush and Clinton
– States set higher standards
– Federal government asked for some kind of demonstrated measure of
“proficiency” (4th, 8th, HS)
– Left decisions to the states
• **2001 NCLB Mandated tests (3rd through 8th grade in reading
and math, and once in HS). Federal government held states and
schools responsible for test scores.
– NCLB set sanctions for failure (Choice, tutoring, closure)
– Federal policy to encourage charter schools (Choice)
http://vimeo.com/9296110
John Merrow
Brief history of school reform:
• http://learningmatters.tv/blog/on-the-newshour/race-to-the-topmaking-history-an-introduction/3410/
2001 NCLB was passed by a huge bipartisan margin.
Youtube this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSMI-iZNOU4
Lehrer Newshour Clip is available on Youtube (link on our homepage)
The 'Race': A Look at NCLB - Part 1 of 2
It was not connected
to just one party—
but fit into the
modern ideology of
those in power.
No Child Left Behind is trying
to solve what problems?
What was its underlying philosophy?
1. Lack of progress as seen on national tests
results (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, NAEP).
2. The achievement GAP
on tests, differences in test
performance for different
ethnic groups and low income
students. (See Spring chapter 7 & 2)
EXCELLENCE (Academic)
BECAME THE GOAL
Caution about an essentialist
view that goes to an
extreme, where knowledge is
reduced to test scores,
a high stakes accountability view
Old solutions had not worked.
New solutions:
• Require tough new standards.
• Require tough accountability.
• Since 2001, schools have been consumed
by a High Stakes Testing Model
States must set standards.
States must use test scores for all
students in reading and math
grades 3-8 to judge progress
(adequate yearly progress—AYP),
and once in high school.
FEDERAL RULES
MANDATES
PROGRESS
Within a Content Area:
Reading and Math Scores-School & District must
Meet Adequate Yearly Progress
Combines 3 Elements
1. Student Performance— Meet a set pass rate
and All SUBGROUPS must pass
2. Student Participation
95%
3. School Progress over time to 100% pass rate
of all students in grades 3-8 by 2014
What do you think about this goal? 100% Pass Rate by 2014?
PROGRESS
TO 100% IN
ILLINOIS
What are the implications for public schools if
most fail to meet AYP?
• Several states that have conducted projections of
AYP results in the year 2013-13 predict that
between 75 and 99 percent of all school will fail
AYP.
• A just-published analysis in the scholarly journal
Science of AYP in California showed that almost all
California elementary schools would fail to meet
AYP by 2014.
TO PASS AYP All subgroups must
meet the standard pass rate.
• The more diverse the school the more chances to
fail to meet the standard.
• Grades 3-8, and once in High School
Subgroups SIZE DIFFERS state-to state: Two years
ago Illinois increased subgroups from 40 to 45
Race/Ethnicity
Economic Background
English Proficiency
Disability (now 3% Alternative Tests)
DIVERSITY PENALTY
AYP is determined by making
it over all 18 hurdles (9 hurdles
for reading and 9 for math) by
disaggregation of data.
Reading
Composite American
Indian
Asian
Black
White
Hispanic Students with Low
Disabilities Income
LEP
Composite American
Indian
Asian
Black
White
Hispanic Students with Low
Disabilities Income
LEP
Math
Many urban
schools are hurt
by the
Diversity Penalty
The more
subgroups, the
more ways to fail.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONTAIN STRICT SANCTIONS
When schools fail to meet AYP this timeline begins….
When scores are computed, and schools
(subgroups) are below standard, then the
School Improvement Timeline takes effect
Miss AYP
Miss AYP
Miss AYP
School Improvement Yr 1(CHOICE)
Miss AYP
School Improvement Yr 2 (TUTOR)
(supplemental educational services)
Miss AYP
Corrective Action
Miss AYP
Restructure (planning year)
Restructure (implement plan)
• Top down
• Say something nice
– Subgroup scores may be indicators
– Tests should be tied to curriculum
– Places concern for failing students and schools
Are you concerned by the amount of high
stakes testing in our schools?
What might teachers react if their school
is designated as needing improvement?
However, A CALL FOR HIGHER ACCOUNTABILITYSHOULD
MEAN “two way” accountability Professor Darling Hammond,
Stanford University
• In exchange for being held accountable states
should provide:
– for upgrading facilities
– new textbooks
– higher teachers’ salaries
– more resources
– creating more opportunities to learn
– incentives to attract more qualified
teachers
Composite (Group) scores don’t
tell the whole story either.
Standard Score 65
2003
•
•
•
•
•
Laura
James
Felipe
Kisha
Raul
100
90
80
70
20
2004
90
80
70
65
transfers out
The Collision of New Standards and Old Inequalities
Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford
University School of Education
• Some of the unintended consequences
– Limited English Proficiency (LEP) groups will never
reach 100% (proficient students move out of the
group)
– Students with disabilities are not on grade level but
have IEP that reflect “instructional” level
– Teachers leave “needs improvement” and “failing”
schools
– The more diverse a school, the more likely to have a
subgroup fail to meet the standard “diversity penalty”
– Loss of funds to struggling schools $$$
– CHOICE Transfer programs need non-failing schools
with open slots
– States will consider lowering standards
– Pressures on students will increase the dropout rate
Value Added
If a 5th grade student, reads at
2nd grade level at the
beginning of the year,
and at the end of the year
reads at a 3th grade level
would you judge this student
to have made progress?
What alterations to assessment
might be considered?
• Many educators support a value added
model of evaluation
BEFORE AND AFTER
EVALUATIONS
Based on history and current results, a test
based system assures a high failure rate.
40% of the nations’ schools have been
labeled as failing AYP over the past five
years
Will high-stakes testing
encourage lower standards?
How should we assess schools?
Why are multiple data points viewed as a sound
way to achieve a successful school?
How should we assess schools?
Why are multiple data points viewed as a sound
way to achieve a successful school?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attendance Rates
Graduation Rates
College Attendance Rates
AP participation
Special Education Rates
Grades
Test scores
Teacher Mobility
Parent satisfaction
Student satisfaction
Quality of the learning community -climate
Discipline Rates