Transcript State Accountability Plan Update

No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
February 23, 2006
Terri Duggan Schwartzbeck
American Association of School Administrators
Getting Started
• You
• Your district
• Your experiences with AYP
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
What’s
Ahead
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
What’s
Ahead
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
Implementation – First Year
• December 2001 – Bill passed in Congress
• January 8, 2002 – signed by President Bush
• July 24, 2002 – first letter with guidance to
state chiefs
• August 6, 2002 – first NPRM
• Fall 2002 – first round of AYP identifications
• December 2, 2002 – first final regulations
dealing with assessment
Implementation – Second Year
• January 2003 – funding fight begins
• June 10, 2003 – all state plans
“approved” by USED
• December 9, 2003 – final regulation
regarding assessment of students with
disabilities – 1 percent rule
Implementation – Third Year
• February 20, 2004 – first flexibility policy regarding
LEP students
• March 15, 2004 – flexibility for teacher quality
• March 30, 2004 – flexibility on participation rates
• Spring and Summer – continued funding fights
• November 5, 2004 – Paige announces intent to resign
• November 17, 2004 – Spellings nominated as new
Secretary
Implementation – Fourth Year
• January-April 2005 – Connecticut Fight
• April 7, 2005 – Spellings announces more plans for
flexibility
• April 20, 2005 – NEA Lawsuit
• August 22, 2005 – Connecticut Lawsuit
• August 31, 2005 – Chicago supplemental services waiver
• October 21, 2005 – Teacher Quality – good faith effort
• November 21, 2005 – Spellings announces plan for
growth models
• November 23, 2005 – NEA lawsuit dismissed
• December 14, 2005 – updated regulations on
assessment of special education – 1+2=3
Where Are We Now?
• AYP – How are the numbers?
• State accountability plans
– What’s behind the numbers?
• Special Education regulations
• Growth Models
• Reauthorization talks
% of Schools Not Making AYP, 2005
20%
7%
30%
9%
35%
13%
36%
16%
2%
20%
12%
4.4%
56%
24%
6%
27% 40% 24%
13%
25%
44%
21%
18%
8.6%
5%
54%
35%
26%
24%
13%
16%
66%
43%
21%
53%
11% 47%
41%
17% 19%
20%
FL:
64%
MA: 44%
RI: 19%
NH: 39%
VT: 3.4%
CT: 20%
NJ: 36%
DE: 33%
MD: 20%
DC: 49%
% of Schools In Need of Improvement, 2005
9%
9%
7%
4%
4%
27%
15%
15%
2%
13%
4%
6%
2.4%
29%
-
19%
14%
10%
17
6%
4%
7%
30%
3%
48%
5%
13%
5%
7%
6%
13%
8%
9%
19
19%
9%
38%
16%
13%
34%
17%
FL:
32%
NH: 7%
VT: 2%
MA: 24%
CT: 15%
RI: 9%
NJ: 25%
DE: 21%
MD: 18%
DC: 42%
% of DISTRICTS Not Making AYP, 2005
29%
7%
16%
1%
47%
8%
66%
31%
4%
6%
4%
38%
28% 12%
39%
6%
44%
92%
56%
24%
80%
23% 32%
12%
78%
45%
50%
MA: 17%
RI: 19%
NH: 9%
VT: 10%
CT: 17%
NJ: %
DE: %
MD: 38%
% of DISTRICTS In Need of Improvement, 2005
17%
7%
30%
7%
0.2%
8%
0
0.8%
3.5%
7%
27% 11%
27%
10%
51%
2%
34%
15%
15%
80%
24%
1.1%
34%
VT: 3.4%
MA: 65%
MD: 33%
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
What’s
Ahead
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
NCLB Implementation: State
Accountability Plans
Subgroup Size
• Biggest change: switch to proportional model
– GA: 40 students or 10%, with a cap of 75
– FL: 30 and 15% or 100
– More states now with cap of 100 or 200
• A few other states increased subgroup size – HI,
IL
• Different sizes for different subgroups now
frowned upon
– NE eliminated
– NPRM prohibits
• Lingering question: group size applied to grade
or school? Some confusing language
Subgroup Sizes
Does Subgroup Size Matter?
In one state…
N=40, Margin of Error
19% miss
AYP
N=40, No Margin
30% miss
AYP
N=5, Margin of Error
52% miss
AYP
N=5, No Margin
88% miss
AYP
How is subgroup size impacting
your district?
Confidence Interval
• Increasing number of states using 99% confidence interval
• 75% confidence interval for safe harbor
Confidence Interval for Safe
Harbor
Understanding Confidence
Intervals
Confidence
interval
Maryland’s Highland Elementary; Source: Maryland Department of Education
These groups
missed the
target but
made AYP.
Confidence Interval and
Subgroup Size
The larger the subgroup, the smaller the “wiggle
room” provided by the confidence interval.
Source: Maryland State Department of Education
How are confidence intervals
impacting your district?
Annual Measurable Objectives
Every state has…
Annual Measurable
Objectives – annual targets
that must be met to make
AYP and determine the
path to proficiency
100%
90%
A starting
80%
point
70%
And every state
must have a goal of
100% of students
at the proficient
level by 2014
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
-1
4
20
13
-1
3
20
12
-1
2
20
11
-1
1
20
10
-1
0
20
09
-0
9
20
08
-0
8
20
07
-0
7
20
06
-0
6
20
05
-0
5
20
04
-0
4
20
03
-0
3
02
20
St
ar
tin
g
Pt
.
0%
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
g
13
12
11
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
St
ar
tin
-1
4
-1
3
-1
2
-1
1
-1
0
-0
9
-0
8
-0
7
-0
6
-0
5
-0
4
-0
3
Pt
.
Backloading or “Balloon Payment”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Stair Step
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ti
ar
t
S
ng
.
Pt
20
3
-0
2
0
20
4
-0
3
0
20
5
-0
4
0
20
6
-0
5
0
20
7
-0
6
0
20
8
-0
7
0
20
9
-0
8
0
20
0
-1
9
0
20
1
-1
0
1
20
2
-1
1
1
20
3
-1
2
1
20
4
-1
3
1
Pt
.
20
02
-0
3
20
03
-0
4
20
04
-0
5
20
05
-0
6
20
06
-0
7
20
07
-0
8
20
08
-0
9
20
09
-1
0
20
10
-1
1
20
11
-1
2
20
12
-1
3
20
13
-1
4
St
ar
tin
g
Linear
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Changes in AMOs
• New assessments=new baselines, new objectives in at least 5 states
• Florida, Virginia, and Missouri switched from stair step to linear
Use of Performance Indices
Weighted index
– Gives “credit” for students scoring just below proficient
– But cannot get “extra credit” for students scoring advanced
District AYP
Same subject
+
All grade spans
+
Two consecutive
years
=
31 states
Does it matter?
AYP
AYP
INOI
Grade Span
AYP
INOI
CA
63.6% 36.4% 85.6% 14.4%
GA
36.5% 63.5% 93.4% 6.6%
Data from the Harvard Civil Rights Project
But it may also help and hurt
districts disproportionately!
How are AMOs and district AYP
impacting your district?
Graduation Rates
• NCES 4 year calculation
• Extra time for students with
disabilities
• Thresholds and goals vary
– from 58% to 100%
– some states only need to improve 0.1% per
year
• No GEDs can count
Full Academic Year
• 180 days?
• October 1?
• Challenge for states with many year round
schools
• Few states making it a “full” year
– Continuous enrollment through two spring testing
cycles (HI)
– May 1 and next year’s assessment (IL)
– Must be enrolled by July 1 of previous year (NJ)
– 140 days (NC)
Retests
• Virginia – finally approved
• Other states – AL, MI, NV, NJ, NY, OR,
TN, TX, WA, WY
• Must not result in pressure to students
to retake exams solely to get a higher
score
Assessing Special Education
Students Under NCLB
A special case
Policies regarding special
education assessment
• The 1 percent rule
– Caps number of proficient and advanced
scores on alternate assessments to
alternate standards
• Severely cognitively disabled students
• Includes out of level if applicable
• Issues with accommodations
• Subgroup size
New Policy – the 2 percent rule
• Caps score on alternate assessments to
modified standards
– Persistent academic difficulties
• Transition defined as a “proxy” which
calculates a number equal to two
percent that is added to the special
education population number of
proficient scores
States using the 2% proxy
2 Percent Rule Codified in New
Proposed Regulations
• Modified achievement
standards
• Focus on clear guidelines
– states must have
criteria for IEP teams to
determine eligibility
• Out of level testing
• Subgroup sizes for groups
of students
• 1+2 really does = 3
• Retests
• Coordination between
ESEA and IDEA
Concerns
• What is a modified
standard?
• Delay in regulations
• Role of IEP teams
• Concern for small
districts
• Scientific basis
In 2005, 35 states increased their targets for
the first time. How did changes affect AYP?
• Most states made major changes to state
accountability plans
• No clear pattern
• Most states decreased schools not making
AYP between 03 and 04 and increased
between 04 and 05
• However, number of schools not making AYP
in 05 was not nearly as bad as feared
AYP and Schools In Need of
Improvement, Total Nationwide
35%
30.5%
30%
25.8%
23.5%
25%
20%
15%
10%
11.9%
12.0%
6.9%
5%
0%
2003-04
Schools Not Making AYP
Data from NEA, January 2006
2004-05
2005-06
Schools In Need of Improvement
Biggest Changes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Special Education Assessment
Identifying Districts for Improvement
Subgroup Size
Graduation Rates
Performance Indices
Annual Measurable Objectives
Lowering Standards?
How have changes to state
accountability plans been
discussed in your state?
Implementing Choice
20% set-aside
• Still low turnout –
Choice transportation:
around 1 percent
(i) an amount equal to 5 percent of its
allocation under subpart 2 to
• District compliance
provide, or pay for, transportation
under paragraph (9);
(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of its
• Logistical
allocation under subpart 2 to provide
supplemental educational services
challenges
–
–
Schools identified
on time
Capacity: class
size, space
under subsection (e); and
(iii) an amount equal to the remaining
10 percent of its allocation under
subpart 2 for transportation under
paragraph (9), supplemental
educational services under
subsection (e), or both, as the
agency determines.
How long should funds be reserved?
“Adequate” and “sufficient” time
Implementing Supplemental
Services
• Low numbers of students served – 12%
– 226,000 of 2 million (2004)
•
•
•
•
Districts as providers
20% set-aside – 5% for choice
SES before choice in 4 districts in VA
Best practices:
– Provider fairs
– Asking parents to rank
– District assessments help with monitoring
SES Provider Types
Private
Nonprofit
Nonreligious
18%
Private For
Profit
49%
School
Districts
14%
Other
Public 5%
Don’t
Know 5%
Source: Center on Education Policy, 2005
Other
1%
Private
Nonprofit
Religious 7%
Implementing Supplemental
Services
Challenges: States, Feds, Districts, Providers
all casting blame
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Schools identified on time
Number of providers, esp. rural and inner city
Low completion rates
Complicated paperwork
Funding
Provider capacity, esp. for special needs students
Evaluating and monitoring; showing progress
Quality of teachers
Implementing Teacher Quality
• “Flexibility”
– HOUSSE
– March 2004: Rural, science & multi-subject
• 29 state have been monitored by ED
– Focus on hiring and retention in 03-04
– Focus on compliance with parent notification requirements
and paraprofessionals in 04-05
•
•
•
•
Difficulty of data
Importance of good faith efforts = paperwork
The “highly qualified” dichotomy
Deadline: end of 2005-06 school year
– Both teachers and paraprofessionals
State Requirements for Teacher
Quality
Education Week, February 15, 2006
How have you experienced the
implementation of choice,
supplemental services, and
teacher quality?
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
What’s
Ahead
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
The goal of NCLB and AYP
The Flat Tax
The current AYP system
After all, it’s no longer this…
English
All Students
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian
White
LEP
Poverty
IEP
Math
additional
indicator/
graduation
95%
participation
But this:
Reading
AMO
AMO
with
CI
Safe
Harbor
(with
or w/o
CI)
Retest
Math
1%
cap on
alt.
assess
2%
proxy
mod.
assess
AMO
AMO
with
CI
Safe
Harbor
Retest
White
Black
Hisp.
Asian
Nativ
e Am.
LEP
Econ
Disadv
Spec.
Needs
Repeat for each grade level…
1%
cap on
alt.
assess
2%
proxy
mod.
assess
95%
Addl
Ind.
With
med.
emerg.,
FAY
With
or w/o
lag?
Graduation
4 year
NCES?
Extra
years
SWD
But children aren’t numbers.
How can we have a system that:
• provides accountability in a way that
allows for the unique differences in
children, schools, and districts?
• Works for each child? All children?
Every child?
• Captures what we want to capture
about success in school?
Growth Models
•
•
•
•
What is a growth model?
NWEA (how many of you are using?)
Political context
Current ED policy
States Applying to Use Growth Model
What’s Ahead: NCLB in
Congress
• More bills introduced during first
session then all of the 108th Congress.
• Rank & file members are disgruntled.
• Committee leadership has no desire to
open up the law.
• There will be more hearings held in
preparation for reauthorization.
• Full reauthorization will not occur until
2007 or 2009.
States whose Representative or Senator
have sponsored a bill in the U.S. Congress
to amend NCLB
Data from NEA, January 2006
Reauthorization: Lines in the Sand
•
•
•
•
•
Commitment to 100% by 2014
“No excuses” mentality
Does money matter?
Some openness to growth models
Other fundamental divides
– Role of local governance (teacher quality)
– Role of federal government
AASA’s Positions
• Problems in NCLB
– Assessment
– Special groups
Not worth fixing
Instead, we need to renegotiate the
terms federal/state/local partnership
– Compensation for services provided under a
contract
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
What’s
Ahead
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
State Action on NCLB
State Legislatures
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
NCSL Report Recommendations
•
•
•
•
Congress should create a revitalized state-federal partnership that
acknowledges diversity among states and shifts focus from processes and
requirements to outcomes and results.
Remove obstacles that stifle state innovations and undermine state programs
that were proving to work before passage of the act. Federal waivers should
be granted and publicized for innovative programs;
Fully fund the act and provide states the financial flexibility to meet its goals.
Remove the one-size-fits-all method that measures student performance:
–
–
–
•
•
encourage more sophisticated and accurate systems that gauge the growth of
individual students and not just groups of students.
States believe the 100-percent proficiency goal is not statistically achievable and
that struggling schools need the opportunity to address problems before losing parts
of their student populations;
Allow for multiple measures
Give IDEA primacy over NCLB in cases of conflict.
Recognize that some schools face special challenges, including adequately
teaching students with disabilities and English language learners. The law
also needs to recognize the differences among rural, suburban and urban
schools.
Lawsuits
• Connecticut
– Testing every year
– Cost and quality of tests
– State must show that it exhausted all
measures
• NEA
– Unfunded mandate
– On appeal
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
State Action
& Lawsuits
How
Accountability
is Working
New
Regulations
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
Funding: Bottom Line
• It’s really, really bad.
– First cut in over a decade.
• Perfect storm around Title I.
–
–
–
–
–
Basic grants get cut.
Concentration grants level funded.
Targeted grants increase.
Education Finance Incentive Grants increase.
Overall cut.
• It’s not going to get better, unless…
FY 06 Federal Funding for
2006 – 2007 School Year
• Education cut for the first time in over a decade
– $651 million cut with 1% across the board
• K-12 programs received major cuts
– Title I - $26.5 million
– IDEA - $7 million
• Goes from 18.6 percent to 17.8 percent
– Education Technology - $224 million
• A 45 percent cut
– Safe and Drug Free Schools - $90 million
• A 20 percent cut
– Education Innovative Block Grant - $99 million
• A 50 percent cut
Funding Cuts for Title I
• Overall Title I was cut by $26.5 million for FY 2006
–
–
–
–
Basic Grants cut by $126.5 million
Concentration Grants level funded
Targeted Grants receive $50 million increase
Education Finance Incentive Grants increased $50 million
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2001
Basic Grants
2002
Concentration Grants
2003
Targeted Grants
2004
2005
2006
Education Finance Incentive Grants
Title I and the Perfect Storm
• In FY 04 (2004 – 2005 school year), ½ of all
districts lost funding in Title I.
• In FY 05 (2005 – 2006 school year), we
anticipate that 2/3 ofall districts will lose
Title I funding.
• These funding cuts are due to three areas:
– Sole increases for targeted grants and education
finance incentive grants.
– Use of new census poverty numbers.
– Across the board cuts being applied to only the
basic grants.
President Bush’s
FY 2007 Budget
• Budget was introduced on February 6, 2006
• Education was cut by $2.1 billion or 3.8 %
• Bush’s budget reduced the federal
commitment to IDEA
– Reduces the federal share from 17.8% to 17%
• Title I Grants to school districts are levelfunded.
• Medicaid reimbursement for school districts is
eliminated.
– End to administrative and transportation claiming.
President Bush’s
FY 2007 Budget
• Budget disproportionately cuts education
programs.
– Out of 141 programs eliminated in entire federal
budget, 42 programs are education related.
• Successful programs would be eliminated under
FY 2007 budget:
– Perkins Career and Technical Education
– Safe and Drug Free Schools
– Title II, Part D – Education Technology State Grants
Competing Priorities of the
Federal Budget
• Pressure of balancing the budget
– Impact of deficit spending.
– Congress would like to balance budget on back of
domestic programs, i.e. education
• Large growth of mandatory spending
– Social Security, Medicare
• Educators must be heard during the education
debate to avoid being cut again.
• Talk about potential cuts in terms of impact on
services to students and staffing.
Decline of the Federal
Investment in Education
20.0%
15.0%
% of
Federal
Increase
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
Prepared by AASA
2006
2007
Federal funding for K-12 will
continue to decline
$38,000
$37,500
$37,000
$36,500
$36,000
$35,500
$35,000
$34,500
In millions
2007
2008
2009
K-12 Federal Funding
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
2010
2011
Most People Greatly Overestimate
Federal Funding for Public Schools
Thinking about the funding for public schools in your community, what percentage of
this funding do you think is provided by the federal government?
% Federal Funding
2%
None
16%
1% - 10%
15%
11% - 20%
29%
21% - 40%
15%
41% - 60%
5%
61% - 80%
81% - 100%
N=1,001
1%
AASA Polling Ipsos Public Affairs 1-05
Funding and Federalism
Congress does not feel accountable to you on federal
funding for education
More federal mandates
and requirements
+
cuts in federal funding
=
a local tax passed on to
taxpayers?
We need to renegotiate the
terms of the federal/
state/local partnership
• Compensation for services
provided under a contract
• Less money, less services
• More money, more
services
No Superintendent Left Behind:
Implementing NCLB
Implementation
Overview
How
Accountability
is Working
New
Regulations
State Action
& Lawsuits
Money
Update
Advocating
about NCLB
AASA Polling Data
Where does the public (and
parents) get their information
about public schools?
Who do they believe?
Newspapers and Television Are The Predominant
Sources of Information About Public Schools
Was the Source of the MOST RECENT item about public schools you saw, read, or heard…
49%
46%
August '03
October '03
38%
35%
7%
Print
Television
7%
Radio
6%
5%
Internet
3%
1%
Other
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Local Newspapers Are The Major Source Of
Information About Public Schools
Did you read this news in a national newspaper, such as USA Today or the New York Times, a local
newspaper, or a magazine, such as Time or Newsweek?
85% 82%
6% 8%
National newspaper
August '03
October '03
2%
Local newspaper
5%
Magazine
7% 5%
Other
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Local Television News Is the Clear Major Television Source of
News About Public Schools
Did you see this news on a national news program, a cable news program, a local news program, or some other type of
program?
71% 70%
August '03
October '03
19%
14%
12% 9%
3% 1%
National news
program
Cable news
program
Local news
program
Other
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
The Public, And Especially Parents, Want Media
To Report On Public Schools
How important is it to you personally that information about public schools in your area
is reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports?
All
Parents
77%
67%
24%
14%
6%
Very important
Somewhat
important
5%
Not too important
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
3%
3%
Not at all important
Respondents Want Stories about Achievement, But
Information Regarding Student Citizenship Is Most
Important Overall
How important is it to you personally that the following types of information about public schools
in your area be reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports?
Very important
Somewhat important
Policy information, such as achievement
standards, student performance, and
test scores
Information that indicates how well
schools are developing better citizens,
such as student and teacher awards or
extra curricular activities
Operational information, such as school
calendars, lunch menus, or emergency
schedule changes such as snow days
Not too important
Not at all important
89% Total Important
60%
29%
91% Total Important
53%
38%
76% Total Important
49%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
27%
What Information About Test Scores Is Most Important?
% of students
passing state tests
26%
% of students not
passing state tests
20%
Trends in test scores
from previous years
20%
Increases in the #
of students passing
state test
17%
Test Scores by
Race/ethnicity and
Socioeconomic status
9%
None of above
Don’t care about
test scores
Not Sure
3%
1%
4%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Information Considered Most Important On A
School Website
35%
Curriculum
objectives
25%
School meetingsPTA, parent/
teacher night
32%
21%
27%
Discipline
policies
15%
20%
Standardized
test scores
13%
13%
Grade
policies
School official
response to
state/federal
criticisms
Cafeteria
menus
Total mentions
7%
11%
First mention
6%
5%
2%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
So, local media is the
primary outlet, and local
school leaders are a
trusted source.
Credibility As A News Source On Public Schools Starts
In The Classroom And Ends In Washington
On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about
public school education.
October '03
August '03
89%
86%
Your child´s teacher(s)*
88%
Teachers
80%
84%
Your child´s principal*
72%
79%
Principals
School leaders
School administrators
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
67%
74%
61%
69%
59%
Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)
Credibility Of Public School Education
News Sources continued
On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about
public school education.
October '03
August '03
Local Media **
58%
School Board Members **
56%
66%
Superintendents
55%
63%
NEA
56%
57%
AASA
State officials
49%
50%
40%
National Media **
Federal officials
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
48%
44%
39%
Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)
When a high level official from the U.S. Department of Education
says there is sufficient funding to meet new federal standards for
student achievement and a local school leader says the federal
initiatives are under-funded, who is more believable?
High-level
government
official
14%
Neither 4%
Not sure
2%
Local school leader
80%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid February 2004
Who do you think would have the best ideas about how to
improve schools?
Senior researcher from
a think tank
7%
Other 8%
College or
University
Professor
8%
Included in “Other”
Local
school
leader
24%
Local
Teacher
53%
Political Candidate 3%
Federal Official 2%
None of the above 2%
Not Sure 1%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid March 2004
Suppose you read or heard a news report in which a high-level official from the U.S.
Department of Education says that students are not making sufficient progress
because teachers and administrators are not trying hard enough. Is that something
you would definitely believe, probably believe, definitely not believe or probably not
believe?
24%
37%
Not believe
Total not believe 61%
26%
Believe
11%
Total believe 37%
Not sure
Source: AASA polls conducted
by Ipsos-Reid
2%
Probably
Definitely
Other
How do NCLB and Adequate
Yearly Progress impact the
public’s view of public schools?
What Impact Does News About
Test Results Have?
• The public believes the state labels as
applied more than federal labels
• Failing to make AYP makes about 2/3’s
of the public impression of school
quality decline
• The impression of decline is slightly
greater among parents than the
general public
There Are Either More Negative Stories Than Positive
Stories Or Readers Read Stories As Negative
60%
34%
6%
Positive news
Negative news
Source: August 2003 poll
Neither positive
nor negative
Would you say that the most recent item about public
schools you saw, read or heard made you feel better or
worse about public education?
27
26
Better
63
63
Worse
Neither
better nor
worse
9
10
Oct. 03
Feb. 04
A Majority Consistently Say Public Schools Are
Headed in the Wrong Direction
Are public schools in the U.S. headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right Direction
51%
43%
N=1001
53%
Wrong Direction
Not Sure
53%
53%
48%
42%
6%
5%
October '03
February '04
40%
7%
March '04
43%
9%
August '04
41%
6%
January '05
A Majority Disagrees with “One Size Fits All”
Penalties for Schools
Under the federal No Child Left Behind accountability system, there are at least 36 achievement targets that each school
must meet. Currently, a school that misses 1 or 2 of its targets receives the same penalty as a school that misses nearly
all of its targets. Do agree or disagree with this way of penalizing schools?
All
Parents
53% 51%
25% 23%
8%
10%
Strongly agree
N=1,000
11%
15%
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Strongly disagree
People Are Influenced More By State Labels
As you may know, schools around the country are rated in two ways – a state accountability system required under state
law and a federal accountability system required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Is your opinion about the
quality of schools in your community influenced more by state labels or federal labels?
All
Parents
68%
63%
State labels
20%
21%
Federal labels
Both equally
Neither
2%
3%
5%
6%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
More Information Does Not Affect Preference
for State Labels
As you may know, statewide test results are coming out this summer. Each state has their own system for rating schools in
addition to federal requirements. A school may get a good grade under their state accountability system and be put on a
list of low performing schools under the federal system. Is your opinion about the quality of schools in your community
influenced more by state labels or federal labels?
All
Parents
66%
64%
State labels
20%
17%
Federal labels
Both equally
Neither
2%
2%
6%
8%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Impressions of School Quality Will Decline Some for
Schools in the Federal Penalty Phase
If you heard that a school in your community received a passing mark under the state accountability system, but has
failed to make adequate progress and is in the penalty phase under the federal requirements, would your impression
of that school’s quality decline significantly, decline somewhat, or would it not have much of an effect at all?
All
42%
Parents
45%
31%
24%
27%
Decline significantly
N=xxx
26%
Decline somewhat
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Not much effect
What messages are effective
when talking about student
achievement and accountability?
Tests are important and
mostly fair, but have
limitations.
Performance is THE Indicator of Success
Name one or two results that would convince you that a school
was successful with all of its students.
61%
Student performance
19%
Student enthusiasm
Specific elements of “Student
Performance” include:
Good test scores (25%)
12%
Environment for success
Number of graduates (15%)
Good performance on
standardized testing (12%)
10%
Attendance
Students are literate (7%)
Quality of graduates (5%)
Personal development
Quality of school staff
8%
Continual improvement (5%)
7%
Source: 2003 poll by Ipsos Reid
Are Tests Fair?
From your experience, would you say these tests ask fair questions that you should be able to
answer, or are the questions so difficult or unfair that you cannot be expected to answer them?
[Asked of public school students, grades 6-12, who have taken standardized tests]
Percentage of students saying:
19
Fair questions (80%)
Difficult or unfair questions (19%)
Don’t know
80
Source: Public Agenda 12/00
119
Are Tests Fair?
A student’s progress for one school year can be accurately summarized by a single standardized test
Total Agree 32%, Total Disagree 62%
Don't Know 5% 5%
Strongly Disagree
42%, Somewhat
Disagree 20%
42%
Strongly Agree
11%, Somewhat
Agree 21%
11%
0%
20%
21%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May
2000
50%
60%
70%
120
Are Tests Fair?
Standardized test scores accurately reflect what children know about the
subject being tested
Total Agree 44%, Total Disagree 48%
Don't Know 7%
7%
Strongly Disagree
24%, Somewhat
Disagree 24%
24%
Strongly Agree 13%,
Somewhat Agree
31%
24%
13%
0%
10%
31%
20%
30%
Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May
2000
40%
50%
60%
121
What accounts for student
performance on statewide tests?
• Although the public recognizes the power of
families over student achievement, they
think that good teaching can overcome
about any non-school factors.
• The public thinks teachers and school
leaders are more able to overcome the
effects of poverty than programs to alleviate
poverty.
Quality of Teaching, Student Motivation Top
Factors Affecting Test Performance
Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement tests.
Quality of teaching in the current
school year
74%
21%
4%
The student's motivation to work
hard in school
72%
23%
4%
Student's home learning
environment
76%
19% 4%
Quality of teaching in previous years
67%
27%
4%
Quality of textbooks and materials
58%
35%
6%
Health issues such as visual/hearing
problems
58%
32%
9%
A lot of influence
Some influence
Source: July 2005 poll
Not Influential
Significant Majority Feel Family, Income,
Community and Health Affect Test Scores
Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement tests.
Family factors
47%
41%
52%
Income related issues
36%
11%
11%
Community factors
41%
45%
13%
Health issues such as asthma/chronic
illness
41%
44%
14%
26%
Physical condition of school building
A lot of influence
47%
Some influence
Source: July 2005 poll
26%
Not Influential
Good teaching can overcome family, community and
income-related factors that could affect performance on
statewide tests
41%
Agree
40%
41%
Total Agree 81%
Disagree 5%
13%
Total Disagree 18%
11%
Not sure
1%
Strongly
Source: July 2005 poll
Somewhat
Not sure
Children from low-income homes generally test worse on statewide
achievement tests than other children. Please tell us whether this action or
group can do a great deal, a fair amount, just a little or nothing at all to
improve test scores for low-income children?
School
Leadership
Teachers
Programs to
Alleviate
Poverty
81%
16%
88%
9%
67%
28%
Just a little/Nothing
Source: July 2005 poll
Great Deal/Fair Amount
When talking about
accountability  talk about
EACH student.
When talking about achievement
 talk about ALL or EVERY
student.
Measuring Student Progress Should
Focus On EACH Child
There is a lot of discussion about the best way to measure student progress in our public schools.
Which of the following ways of measuring student progress comes closest to your own opinion?
79%
20%
A system that measures the
progress of each individual
child
A system that measures the
progress of all children
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005
1%
Not sure
Following Students Year to Year Is Best
Measure Of Teaching Effectiveness
8. Thinking about the impact of teaching, which of the following do you think is the best way to accurately measure
the job that teachers are doing in educating children…
Following the progress of each student
from year to year on state tests
40%
Making adequately yearly progress as
defined under the federal No Child Left
Behind Act
16%
Comparing average state scores for the
school as a whole from year to year
15%
13%
Student grades
Average state test scores for each school
as a whole
Not sure
10%
Individuals who feel U.S.
public schools are headed in
the right direction are more
likely to report AYP as an
accurate measure of teaching
effectiveness (23% vs. 12%
among those who feel schools
are headed in the wrong
direction).
6%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005
Achievement – A slight
advantage for “all”
In thinking about levels of achievement in our country’s public schools, public
schools should focus on high achievement for…
Not sure
3%
EACH child
45%
ALL children
52%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
Quality – “All” trumps “Each”
10. In thinking about quality in our country’s public schools, which of the following
statements comes closest to your own opinion…public schools should focus on…
Not sure
4%
EACH child
38%
ALL children
58%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
Success – “Every Child” vs.
“All Children”
11. And which of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion… I want public schools to
focus on success for…
Not sure
5%
ALL
children
43%
EVERY
child
52%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
Wrapping It Up
Primary source of Local media – print and TV
information for the public 
Credible sources  Teachers and school leaders
– NOT federal officials
NCLB and tests  Important, but have
limitations
When talking about EACH student, state ratings
accountability  first; progress matters
When talking about ALL students or EVERY
achievement or quality  student
Where Do We Go From Here?
What Now?
• How can you advocate for changes in the
implementation of NCLB in your state?
– Working with the key players in your state
• Moving forward on a renegotiated state/federal/local
partnership
– Start conversations with your congressional delegation
– Talk about how funding cuts hurt you – be specific – what
staff or services are you losing?
• Keep the lines of communication open with your
community, build more community support for public
schools
– Use what we’ve learned about effective advocacy