nclb presentation final 5-10-04

8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04

1/22

Cost Benefit Analysis of theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB)

Presented bySurendrakumar Bagde

Peter EdelmanDavid Lee4/28/2004


2/22

NCLB Background


3/22

W e explored three aspects NCLB

Background of NCLB

Declining test scores

Other education actsNCLB features

NCLB Costs

NCLB Benefits


4/22

S tudent Intellectual AchievementDeclined in the 1970s

GeneralIntellectual

Achievement(GIA)declined in the1970s

Source: Bishop (1989)


5/22

NCLB Established AccountabilityS tandards that Are Expected toEnhance S tudent Achievement

Adequate YearlyProgress (AYP)TestingStates set the

standardsPenalties for failure tomeet AYP


6/22

Congress Responded to theDecline

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)

Provided funding and assistance to K-12 schools

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)

Maintains ESEA principles & act appropriationsEstablishes accountability standards


7/22

NCLB requirements have caused

controversy

Conflicts with state standards

Forces schools to focus on testing

Addresses failure through punishmentinstead of assistance


8/22

NCLB Costs


9/22

Costs of the NCLB Programare Hotly Debated

A politically charged debateFederal vs. State and LocalSupporters vs. Haters

Fundamental disagreement on what the costscope of the NCLB project should be

Difference in expected States level inacademic proficiency under IASA vs. actualproficiency


10/22

G oals of NCLB (2002~2014)

1) Meet state-set standards for subject mastery within time-frame

2) Ensure states assess student knowledge to check #1

3) Define and implement teacher quality improvement efforts toachieve #2

4) Define ways that can improve schools performance

5) Ensure student performance feedback to parents is effective

6) Gives freedom in allocation of funds by states to achieve allthese goals


11/22

Cost Components of NCLB Accountability (AYP and Student Assessments)

Annual testing of studentsReading (grades 3~8)Math (grades 3~8)Science (grades 3~5, 6~9, and 10~12)English for LEP studentsDisability students (IDEA)

Personnel Attracting hiring high-quality teachers/paraprofessionalsRetention

Information ManagementDatabase systems for analyzing dataReporting and monitoring

School ImprovementCorrective action on delinquent schoolsStudent support systems to increase performance


12/22


13/22


14/22

Cost Estimates (2010~2014):NCLB incremental costs over IA S A, etc.

$ 17,609,873,25$ 7,206,477,812$ 7,059,727,076$ 6,901,459,866In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%)

$ 22,982,000,00$ 9,180,000,000$ 8,778,000,000$ 8,376,000,000Total Each Year

$ 2,300,000,000$ 2,200,000,000$ 2,100,000,000$ 2,000,000,000School Improvement

$ 82,000,000$ 80,000,000$ 78,000,000$ 76,000,000Information Management$ 5,600,000,000$ 5,400,000,000$ 5,200,000,000$ 5,000,000,000Personnel

$ 15,000,000,00$ 1,500,000,000$ 1,400,000,000$ 1,300,000,000Accountability

2013-142012-132011-122010-11

$ 17,609,873,25$ 7,206,477,812$ 7,059,727,076$ 6,901,459,866In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%)

$ 22,982,000,00$ 9,180,000,000$ 8,778,000,000$ 8,376,000,000Total Each Year

$ 2,300,000,000$ 2,200,000,000$ 2,100,000,000$ 2,000,000,000School Improvement

$ 82,000,000$ 80,000,000$ 78,000,000$ 76,000,000Information Management$ 5,600,000,000$ 5,400,000,000$ 5,200,000,000$ 5,000,000,000Personnel

$ 15,000,000,00$ 1,500,000,000$ 1,400,000,000$ 1,300,000,000Accountability

2013-142012-132011-122010-11


15/22

T otal Cost Estimates for NCLB

Components Total 2002~2014

Accountability 24,770,665,570

Personnel 51,610,394,766Information Management 924,256,120

School Improvement 19,839,448,838

Total 97,144,765,294

In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%) $ 82,066,405,788


16/22

NCLB Benefits


17/22

Pennsylvania S ystem of S choolAssessment (P SS A)

Determines how well children are learning atcertain grade levels.

Subjects are: reading, math and writingPSSA has a range of 800-1600The standard deviation for 5 th grade math is67.1, reading 5 th grade is 59.59,8 th grademath is 65.8,The mean is around 1330

Source: Davare (2004 )


18/22

Pennsylvania S ystem of S choolAssessment (P SS A)

By 2014 the minimum score at the proficientlevel has to be 1300

The new mean score will be 1450 (range hasto b3 1300-1600)The quality improvement, taken as differencebetween two means, is 120In terms of todays standard deviation, qualityimprovement is 1.84*s.d.

Source: Davare (2004 )


19/22

Economic Benefits of QualityImprovement

Test performance have the effect on earningpotential of individualsOne standard deviation difference on testperformance is related to 1 difference inannual growth rates of GDP per capita

An improvement of 1 s.d. would put U.S.

student performance in line with that of students in a variety of high performingEuropean countries


20/22

Quality Improvements have highpay-offs

resent Value of enefits

5900

11803

17704

0.5 S.D. 1 S.D. 1.5 S.D.

Quality Improvement in S

V

i n

i l l i o n s

S ource: Hanushek (2004 )


21/22

Conclusions

Present value of benefits is projected torange from 6T to 17T.

Benefits far exceed costs, thus NPV isinsensitive to cost levels & discount rate.Reverses the trend of U. S. students fallingbehind students in other countries


22/22

Bibliography:Bishop, John H. Is the Test Score Decline Responsible for the Productivity Growth Decline?, The

American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, March 1989, p. 178-197

Wermers, Jason, No Child called impractical, Richmond Times-Dispatch ,http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD 2FM G Article 2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=M G Article&cid=1031773592674 February 10, 2004

Davare, Dave, director of research, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, personalcommunication through Robert Strauss, April 27, 2004

Hanushek, Eric A., Some Simple Analytics of School Quality, Working Paper 10229, NationalBureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w10229 , January, 2004

Accountability Works, NCLB Under a Microscope, Education Leaders Council, January 2004.

Mathis, William J., No Child Left Behind, Costs and Benefits, Phi Delta Kappan,www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305mat.htm .

Hanushek, Eric A., The Importance of School Quality, Education Next , Spring 2003,http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20032/141.pdf , viewed 4/29/04

nclb presentation final 5-10-04

Documents