no superintendent left behind: implementing nclb february 23, 2006 terri duggan schwartzbeck...

No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing

NCLBFebruary 23, 2006

Terri Duggan SchwartzbeckAmerican 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

Money Update

Advocating about NCLB

State Action & Lawsuits



How Accountability

is Working

Money Update



What’s Ahead

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

FL: 64%

20%

43%

12%16%

41%

40%

26%

56%

35%

21%

47%

9%

24%

20%

44%25%

36%

6%

16%

13%

54%

24%13%

19%

21%

35%17%

30%

11%

24%

MA: 44%

RI: 19%

NH: 39%

VT: 3.4%

CT: 20%

NJ: 36%

DE: 33%

MD: 20%

DC: 49%

53%

2%

7%

66%

13%

4.4%

27%

5%

8.6%

18%

20%

% of Schools In Need of Improvement, 2005

FL:32%

13%15%

13%

9%

34%

27%

10%4%

15%

38%

17%

17 5%

6%

13%

4%

7%

29%

30%

8%

4%

13%

6%

9%

5%

NH: 7%

VT: 2%

MA: 24%

CT: 15%

RI: 9%

NJ: 25%

DE: 21%

MD: 18%

DC: 42%

19

6%

7%

9%

7%

3%

2%

-

48%

4%

19%

16%

9%

2.4%

19%

14%

% of DISTRICTS Not Making AYP, 2005

39%

MA: 17%

RI: 19%

NH: 9%

VT: 10%

CT: 17%

NJ: %

DE: %

MD: 38%

12%

56%

4%

66% 45%

50%

29%

8%

78%

32%

24%

44%

6%

47%

6%

23%

7%16%

12%

4%

1%

28%

38%

80%

92%

31%

% of DISTRICTS In Need of Improvement, 2005

34%

VT: 3.4%

MA: 65%

MD: 33%

15%

15%

17%

30%

7%

0

0.8%

27%2%

1.1%

7%

3.5%

24%

27%

0.2%

11% 10%

34%

80%

7%

8%

51%



How Accountability

is Working


Money Update


What’s Ahead

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

Maryland’s Highland Elementary; Source: Maryland Department of Education

Understanding Confidence Intervals

These groups missed the target but made AYP.

Confidence interval

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…

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A starting

point

Annual Measurable Objectives – annual targets that must be met to make AYP and

determine the path to proficiency

And every state must have a goal

of 100% of students at the proficient level

by 2014

Backloading or “Balloon Payment”

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stair Step

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Linear

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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 IndicesWeighted 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

AYP Grade Span

AYP INOI AYP INOI

CA 63.6%

36.4%

85.6%

14.4%

GA 36.5%

63.5%

93.4%

6.6%

Does it matter?

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

Nationwide30.5%

6.9%

23.5%

11.9%

25.8%

12.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Schools Not Making AYP Schools In Need of Improvement

Data from NEA, January 2006

Biggest Changes

• Special Education Assessment• Identifying Districts for

Improvement• Subgroup Size• Graduation Rates• Performance Indices• Annual Measurable Objectives

Lowering Standards?State seeks changes to U.S. education lawLouisville Courier-Journal, 11/30/05Federal rules called too unforgiving

Kentucky public schools would have an easier time meeting No Child Left Behind's reading and math standards and avoiding penalties under changes the state is asking the federal government to approve.

Relaxed standards part of reason for

better scores

Chicago Sun-Times, 11/9/05

When the state first released test results this summer, it looked

as if more schools and districts had met federal testing goals

than last year. But relaxed state standards this year, not

necessarily better performance, account for some of that

growth, new data analyzed by the Chicago Sun-Times shows.

The softened standards made it easier for some groups,

particularly limited English and special needs students, to pass.

Standards for No Child law eased

Chicago Sun-Times, 6/29/05

State eyes

standards

changeMiami Herald, 3/17/05

After hearing complaints from

school districts, the state of

Florida may change its

standards for the federal No

Child Left Behind Act.

How have changes to state accountability plans been discussed in your state?

Implementing Choice• Still low turnout

– around 1 percent

• District compliance

• Logistical challenges– Schools identified

on time– Capacity: class

size, space

20% set-asideChoice transportation:(i) an amount equal to 5 percent

of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide, or pay for, transportation under paragraph (9);

(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide supplemental educational services 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 For Profit

49%

Private Nonprofit

Nonreligious

18%

School Districts

14%

Don’t Know 5%

Other 1%

Private Nonprofit

Religious 7%

Other Public 5%

Source: Center on Education Policy, 2005

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?



How Accountability

is Working

Money Update



What’s Ahead

The goal of NCLB and AYPThe Flat Tax

The current AYP system

After all, it’s no longer this…

English Math

additional indicator/

graduation95%

participation

All Students

Black

Hispanic

Native American

Asian

White

LEP

Poverty

IEP

But this:Reading Math 95% Addl

Ind.Graduation

AMO AMO with CI

Safe Harbor

(with or w/o

CI)

Retest 1% cap on

alt. assess

2% proxy mod.

assess

AMO AMO with CI

Safe Harbor

Retest 1% cap on

alt. assess

2% proxy mod.

assess

With med.

emerg., FAY

With or w/o lag?

4 year NCES?

Extra yearsSWD

White

Black

Hisp.

Asian

Native Am.

LEP

Econ Disadv

Spec.Needs

Repeat for each grade level…

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 fixingInstead, we need to renegotiate the

terms federal/state/local partnership– Compensation for services provided

under a contract



How Accountability

is Working

What’s Ahead

Money Update



State Action on NCLBState Legislatures

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



How Accountability

is Working

New Regulations

Money Update



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

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants 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 level-funded.

• 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.

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% ofFederalIncrease

Prepared by AASA

Decline of the Federal Investment in

Education

Federal funding for K-12 will continue to decline

$34,500

$35,000

$35,500

$36,000

$36,500

$37,000

$37,500

$38,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

K-12 Federal FundingIn millions

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Most People Greatly Overestimate Federal Funding for Public Schools

1%

5%

15%

29%

15%

16%

2%

81% - 100%

61% - 80%

41% - 60%

21% - 40%

11% - 20%

1% - 10%

None

% Federal Funding

Thinking about the funding for public schools in your community, what percentage of this funding do you think is provided by the federal government?

N=1,001 AASA Polling Ipsos Public Affairs 1-05

Funding and Federalism

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

Congress does not feel accountable to you on federal funding for education



How Accountability

is Working

New Regulations

Money Update



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…

6%3%

49%

35%

7%5%

1%

46%

7%

38%

Print Television Radio Internet Other

August '03

October '03

Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

7%8% 5% 5%

85%

2%6%

82%

National newspaper Local newspaper Magazine Other

August '03

October '03

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?


3%

19%

9%

70%

1%

14%

71%

12%

National newsprogram

Cable newsprogram

Local newsprogram

Other

August '03

October '03

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?


67%

24%

6% 3%

77%

14%

5% 3%

Very important Somewhatimportant

Not too important Not at all important

All Parents

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?

The Public, And Especially Parents, Want Media To Report On Public Schools


49%

53%

60%

27%

38%

29%

Operational information, such as schoolcalendars, lunch menus, or emergencyschedule changes such as snow days

Information that indicates how wellschools are developing better citizens,such as student and teacher awards or

extra curricular activities

Policy information, such as achievementstandards, student performance, and

test scores

Very important Somewhat important Not too important Not at all important

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?

Respondents Want Stories about Achievement, But Information Regarding Student Citizenship

Is Most Important Overall

91% Total Important

89% Total Important

76% Total Important


What Information About Test Scores Is Most Important?

4%

1%

3%

9%

17%

20%

20%

26%% of students passing state

tests

Trends in test scores from previous years

Increases in the # of students passing

state test

None of above

Don’t care abouttest scores

Not Sure

% of students not passing state tests

Test Scores byRace/ethnicity and

Socioeconomic status


2%

6%

7%

13%

15%

21%

25%

5%

11%

13%

20%

27%

32%

35%

Total mentions

First mention

Information Considered Most Important On A School Website

Curriculumobjectives

School meetings-PTA, parent/teacher night

Disciplinepolicies

Standardizedtest scores

Gradepolicies

School officialresponse tostate/federal

criticisms

Cafeteriamenus


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

59%

61%

67%

72%

80%

86%

69%

74%

79%

84%

88%

89%

School administrators

School leaders

Principals

Your child´s principal*

Teachers

Your child´s teacher(s)*

October '03 August '03

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.

Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

Credibility Of Public School Education News Sources continued

39%

48%

40%

49%

56%

55%

56%

58%

44%

50%

57%

63%

66%

Federal officials

National Media **

State officials

AASA

NEA

Superintendents

School Board Members **

Local Media **

October '03 August '03

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.

Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

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?

Local school leader 80%

High-level government

official 14%

Neither 4%

Not sure 2%

Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid February 2004

Senior researcher froma think tank

7%

College orUniversityProfessor

8%

Local schoolleader

24%

Local Teacher

53%

Who do you think would have the best ideas about how to improve schools?

Other 8%

Included in “Other”

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?

Not sure

Believe

Not believe

Probably Definitely Other

37% 24%

26% 11%

2%

Total believe 37%

Total not believe 61%


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%

6%

34%

Positive news Negative news Neither positivenor negative

Source: August 2003 poll

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?

10

63

26

9

63

27

Worse

Better

Oct. 03 Feb. 04

Neither better nor worse

43% 42% 40%43% 41%

51% 53% 53%48%

53%

6% 5% 7% 9%6%

October '03 February '04 March '04 August '04 J anuary '05

Right Direction Wrong Direction Not Sure

Are public schools in the U.S. headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?

A Majority Consistently Say Public Schools Are Headed in the Wrong Direction

N=1001

A Majority Disagrees with “One Size Fits All” Penalties for Schools

8%11%

25%

53%

10%15%

23%

51%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

All Parents

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?

N=1,000Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

6%

3%

21%

63%

5%

2%

20%

68%

Neither

Both equally

Federal labels

State labels

All Parents

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?

People Are Influenced More By State Labels


8%

2%

17%

64%

6%

2%

20%

66%

Neither

Both equally

Federal labels

State labels

All Parents

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?

More Information Does Not Affect Preference for State Labels


Impressions of School Quality Will Decline Some for Schools in the Federal Penalty Phase

24%

42%

31%

26%

45%

27%

Decline significantly Decline somewhat Not much effect

All Parents

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?

N=xxxSource: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid

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

7%

8%

10%

12%

19%

61%

Quality of school staff

Personal development

Attendance

Environment for success

Student enthusiasm

Student performance

Name one or two results that would convince you that a school was successful with all of its students.

Specific elements of “Student Performance” include:

Good test scores (25%)

Number of graduates (15%)

Good performance on standardized testing (12%)

Students are literate (7%)

Quality of graduates (5%)

Continual improvement (5%)

Source: 2003 poll by Ipsos Reid

Source: Public Agenda 12/00 119

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]

19

80

Fair questions (80%)

Difficult or unfair questions (19%)

Don’t know

Percentage of students saying:

Are Tests Fair?

Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May 2000

120

A student’s progress for one school year can be accurately summarized by a single standardized test

Total Agree 32%, Total Disagree 62%

11%

42%

5%

21%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Strongly Agree11%, Somewhat

Agree 21%

Strongly Disagree42%, SomewhatDisagree 20%

Don't Know 5%

Are Tests Fair?

Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May 2000

121

13%

24%

7%

31%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Strongly Agree 13%,Somewhat Agree

31%

Strongly Disagree24%, SomewhatDisagree 24%

Don't Know 7%

Standardized test scores accurately reflect what children know about the subject being tested Total Agree 44%, Total Disagree 48%

Are Tests Fair?

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.

74%

72%

67%

58%

58%

21%

23%

19%

27%

35%

32%

76%

9%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%Quality of teaching in the current

school year

The student's motivation to workhard in school

Student's home learningenvironment

Quality of teaching in previous years

Quality of textbooks and materials

Health issues such as visual/hearingproblems

A lot of influence Some influence Not InfluentialSource: July 2005 poll

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.

47%

52%

41%

26%

41%

36%

45%

44%

47%

41%

26%

14%

13%

11%

11%Family factors

Income related issues

Community factors

Health issues such as asthma/chronicillness

Physical condition of school building

A lot of influence Some influence Not Influential

Source: July 2005 poll

Good teaching can overcome family, community and income-related factors that could affect performance

on statewide tests

5%

40% 41%

13%

1%Not sure

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Somewhat Not sure

11%

41%

Total Agree 81%

Total Disagree 18%


28%

9%

16%

67%

88%

81%

Programs toAlleviatePoverty

Teachers

SchoolLeadership

Just a little/Nothing Great Deal/Fair Amount

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?


When talking about accountability talk about

EACH student.

When talking about achievement talk about

ALL or EVERY student.

79%

20% 1%

A system that measures theprogress of each individual

child

A system that measures theprogress of all children

Not sure

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?

Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005

40%

16%

13%

10%

6%

15%

Following the progress of each studentfrom year to year on state tests

Making adequately yearly progress asdefined under the federal No Child Left

Behind Act

Comparing average state scores for theschool as a whole from year to year

Student grades

Average state test scores for each schoolas a whole

Not sure

Following Students Year to Year Is Best Measure Of Teaching

Effectiveness8. 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…

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).

Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005

Achievement – A slight advantage for “all”

Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005

In thinking about levels of achievement in our country’s public schools, public schools should focus on high achievement for…

ALL children52%

EACH child45%

Not sure3%

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…

ALL children58%

EACH child38%

Not sure4%


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…

EVERY child52%

ALL children

43%

Not sure5%


Wrapping It Up

Primary source of information for the public

Local media – print and TV

Credible sources Teachers and school leaders – NOT federal officials

NCLB and tests Important, but have limitations

When talking about accountability

EACH student, state ratings first; progress matters

When talking about achievement or quality

ALL students or EVERY 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

no superintendent left behind: implementing nclb february 23, 2006 terri duggan schwartzbeck...

Documents