Transcript How Will NCLB Affect Schools and Students?

How Will NCLB Affect
Schools and Students?
Rebecca Zwick
University of California,
Santa Barbara
AAAS Meeting, Seattle, February 15, 2004
NCLB assessment provisions
• Grades 3-8 tested annually in math and
reading by 2005-6
• All students 100% proficient by 2013-14
• Schools must show “adequate yearly
progress” for each subject area and group
(Results are percentage declared proficient)
• At least 95% of each group to be tested
Results to be reported separately for
groups defined by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gender
Racial/ethnic category
English proficiency status
Disability status
Migrant status
Socioeconomic status
(US DOE, 2003)
NCLB Sanctions for failure to meet
AYP objectives (Title I-eligible schools):
• 2 years in a row–– “in need of
improvement:” Students must be offered the
chance to transfer to another public school.
• 3 years in a row––students must also be
offered supplemental services, e.g., tutoring.
• Continued failure: School is subject to
corrective measures and possibly takeover.
Benefits of NCLB
• Reflects national desire to improve
education and reduce achievement gap
• Forces schools to focus on needs of groups
that are sometimes neglected
Unintended effects
• Focus on assessment can narrow instruction
• Unrealistic goals and fear of sanctions can
encourage reduction in state standards
• Morale may decay because of perceived
inequities in the sanctioning process
• Sanctions can lead to double jeopardy
• Legislative action opposing NCLB in
Virginia, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota
Focus on assessment can
narrow instruction
Education Week’s National Survey of Public
School Teachers (see Olson, Jan. 11, 2001)
Conducted in 2000, pre-NCLB (n = 1,019)
• 66%: State testing leads to focus on tested
material “to the detriment of other areas”
• 67% say there is “far too much” or
“somewhat too much” focus on tests
Unrealistic
goals and fear
of sanctions can
encourage
reduction in
state standards
Percentage at or above NAEP
Achievement Levels: Grade 4 Reading
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003
Basic 62
60
60
59
64
63
Profi- 29
cient
30
29
29
31
31
Notes to table:
• 6 to 8% of each cohort reached “Advanced”
• SEs for tabled %’s range from .3 to 1.4
• All results are for “accommodations
allowed” conditions except 1992 and 1994.
Fear of sanctions provides incentives
for lower standards of “proficiency”
How is NCLB “proficient” defined?
• Louisiana: set equal to state’s “basic”
• Colorado: set equal to state’s “partially
proficient”
• Connecticut: Set lower than state’s own
goals
• (Source, Hoff, D., Education Week, 10/9/02)
• Morale may
decay because
of perceived
inequities in the
sanctioning
process.
Criteria for sanctions vary across
states:
•
•
•
•
Tests selected or developed
Definition of “proficient”
Minimum sample size required
“Adequate yearly progress” (AYP)
definition and starting points
• Enforcement (waiver policies)
Examples of variability across states
According to 8/6/03 Education Week:
• Minimum sample size for accountability
ranges from 5 to 50 (more later…)
• AYP: 21 accelerating; 25 approx. linear
• For 2003, some states provided waivers for
schools with participation rates under 95%
Criteria for sanctions may be unreliable
• Harsh sanctions can be triggered by results
on a single fallible indicator
• Imprecision due to small samples–as small
as 5 (29 states include CI or SE criteria)
• Inaccuracy due to student mobility
• No credit for changes that don’t affect the
percentage proficient (Linn et al., 2002)
Sanctions can lead to double jeopardy
• Low socioeconomic-status schools are more
likely to be judged “in need of
improvement.”
• Sanctions could then further drain school
resources.
• Great care must be taken to avoid
unjustified imposition of sanctions.
Recommendations: What can statistics
and measurement professionals offer?
• Encourage inclusion of information about
sampling and measurement error
• Study the probability of misclassifying
schools under realistic assumptions.
• Encourage methods that reduce the
likelihood of misclassification.
• Educate school personnel and policymakers
about educational measurement & statistics
Bibliography
• Goertz, M. E. (2001, Sept.) The federal role in defining
“adequate yearly progress.” Consortium for Policy
Research in Education Report. cpre. org.
• Hoff, D. J. (2002, Oct. 9). States revised meaning of
‘proficient.’ Education Week, pp. 1, 24-25.
• Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002).
Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational
Researcher, 31, 3-16.
• Olson, L. (2001, Jan.11). Overboard on testing?
Education Week [Quality Counts 2001], pp. 23-30.
References (continued)
• Olson, L. (2003, Aug. 6). ‘Approved’ is relative
term for Ed. Dept. Education Week, pp. 1, 34-36.
• Olson, L. (2004, Jan. 7). Data doubts plague
states, federal law. Education Week, pp. 1, 26.
• Rebora, A. (updated 2003, Aug. 6). No Child Left
Behind. Summary Education Week document.
edweek.com.
• Rogosa, D. (1999). Accuracy of individual scores
expressed in percentile ranks: classical test theory
calculations. (CSE Technical Report 509.)
cse.ucla.edu.
References (continued)
• Thum, Y. M. (2003). No Child Left Behind:
Methodological challenges & recommendations
for measuring adequate yearly progress. (CSE
Technical Report 590.) cse.ucla.edu.
• US Department of Education (2003). No Child
Left Behind: A Parents Guide. nclb.gov/next.
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, NAEP 2003, 2002, 2000,
1998, 1994 and 1992 Reading Assessments.