Transcript Ron

No Child Left Behind
Critical Research Findings
For School Boards
Ronald Dietel
UCLA Graduate School of Education
& Information Studies
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (CRESST)
December 2, 2005
California School Boards Association
San Diego, CA
1
NCLB Overview-Part 1
 Annual state testing in language arts and mathematics,
grades 3-8 plus one grade in high school. By 2007-08, science
must be tested in one grade each in elementary, middle, and
high school.
 95% participation rates of each subgroup
 Mandatory state NAEP participation (every two years in
math and reading)
 Adequate Yearly Progress, includes subgroups meeting
minimum group size by race, disadvantaged, English language
learners, and special education students
 State flexibility, may use their own standards and tests,
flexible minimum subgroup size, many different AYP variations
have been approved
2
NCLB Overview-Part 2
 Sanctions
 Failure to meet AYP for two years requires supplemental
educational services such as tutoring or transfer to other district
school
 Failure a third year requires stronger corrective action such as
removing staff, implementing new curriculum, outside experts,
restructuring
 A School is removed from a “needs improvement list” if it makes
AYP for two consecutive years
 Only Title 1 schools subject to sanctions
 Political Atmosphere
 States had responded slowly to earlier ESEA laws
 NCLB had strong bipartisan support, Senate approved 87-10;
House 381-41
 Virtually no research conducted to determine feasibility of NCLB
goals
3
California’s NCLB Overview
 AYP Criteria defined in August 2005 CDE NCLB Workbook
 A school or LEA may need to meet 46 different criteria in order to
make AYP.
 Primary performance measure is the California Standards Test;
API is an additional measure as well as the high school graduation
rate.
 California selected a path designed to identify the fewest number
of schools and districts in need of improvement while minimizing
changes to the current STAR accountability system.
4
California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory
English-Language Arts
SourceCDE 2005
Accountability
Progress
Report
5
California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory
Mathematics
SourceCDE 2005
Accountability
Progress
Report
6
California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory
Graduation Rate
SourceCDE 2005
Accountability
Progress
Report
7
California Makes Decisions to
Minimize Schools in Need of Improvement
 Minimum of 100 valid test scores for
subgroups
 Backloaded trajectory
 Confidence Intervals (applies a 75%
confidence interval to safe harbor provision).
8
Critical Research Findings
 State standards, tests, and achievement levels are not comparable
 Teachers adjust their approach according to what is assessed
 Scores are usually low on new state tests. As districts and teachers
adjust instruction, scores improve, but eventually level off
 Schools usually focus on the test more so than on the standards
 What is not tested becomes less visible, social studies, the arts, etc.
 Tests are not perfect and are oftentimes used improperly
 Reliability decreases with fewer numbers of students
 Classroom assessment and grading practices are uneven and often of
low quality
9
Tests Drive Teaching…
SourceHerman and
Golan
CRESST Report
334
Effects of
Standardized
Testing on
Teachers
and Learning—
Another Look
10
Tests Drive Instruction…
SourceHerman and
Golan
CRESST Report
334
Effects of
Standardized
Testing on
Teachers
and Learning—
Another Look
11
But, Tests Do Not Necessarily Increase Learning
California Performance on the
2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress
Source-Education Trust-West
Grade & Subject
California ranking-All
50 states+DC
4th Grade Math
44
8th Grade Math
44
4th Grade Reading
48
8th Grade Reading
49
12
Despite 8 years of STAR & 4 Years of NCLB
Long Term California NAEP Performance is Flat
NAEP Mathematics
Percent Proficient or Advanced
1998
2002
2003
2005
Grade 4
Nation
28
30
30
30
Grade 4
California
20
21
21
21
Grade 8
Nation
30
31
30
29
Grade 8
California
21
20
22
21
13
100% Proficiency is Unrealistic Goal
2005 California Standards Test
Percent Students Proficient or Above
Student
Type
6th grade
Reading
6th grade
math
7th grade
reading
7th grade
math
Lower
All
students
22
25
28
26
Performing
ELL
5
13
6
13
Special
needs
4
2
4
4
All
students
83
87
91
89
ELL
46
85
25
42
Special
needs
42
44
47
41
School
Very High
Performing
School
14
Other Measures Support NAEP Results
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
All Students, Reading
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
50
40
45
45
46
39
39
40
3rd Grade
7th Grade
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
Ye ar
2005
15
Small or No Improvement
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
All Students, Math
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
55
56
50
45
46
57
48
3rd Grade
7th Grade
40
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
Ye ar
16
ELL Performance is Flat in Reading
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
English Language Learners, Reading
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
3rd Grade
7th Grade
50
40
30
20
22
18
22
17
24
17
10
0
2003
2004
2005
Ye ar
17
ELL Performance in Math is Flat or Declining
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
English Language Learners, Math
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
3rd Grade
7th Grade
50
40
40
40
21
21
30
26
20
21
10
0
2003
2004
Ye ar
2005
18
Special Needs Reading Performance
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
Special Needs Students, Reading
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
3rd Grade
7th Grade
50
40
30
20
21
20
15
15
20
16
10
0
2003
2004
Ye ar
2005
19
Special Needs Mathematics Performance
California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005
Special Needs Students, Math
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
3rd Grade
7th Grade
50
40
30
29
29
14
15
31
20
16
10
0
2003
2004
Ye ar
2005
20
Other States and Districts Are Not on
Target to Reach 100% Proficiency
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, 10th Grade Language Arts
21
Other Important Things to Know
 States are working with the U.S. Department of Education to
delay NCLB consequences to schools
 ESEA is scheduled for reauthorization in 2007
22
What Your School District and Board Can Do
Focus On Teachers and
Teaching
23
What Else Your School District and Board Can Do
 Be realistic about test scores gains and the feasibility of all
schools and all subgroups making AYP
 Develop quality district assessments
 Improve student assignments and grading practices
 Make improved data use a key goal, provide resources to make
it happen
 Work cooperatively as a board, superintendent, and district
24
Resources
 Your Own District Staff
 EdSource -- www.edsource.org
 CRESST.org -- National Center for Research
on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
 WestEd.org -- Regional laboratory and future
home of the new “Accountability and
Assessment Comprehensive Center”
25