The Special Education Leadership Training Project

January, 2003

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor

Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate Professor

University of MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts-AmherstAmherst

No Child Left BehindThe Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) Meant to affect every child, every school, and every teacher in the country

• Meredith Becker• Marianne Currier• Heather Goukler• Jahmal Mosley• John Provost

No Child Left Behind : The Four Pillars

Accountability

Flexibility

Options

Research

AccountabilityFor achievement

• Achievement across the core content areas• Achievement gaps will be eliminated• 22 indicators of low performing schools… schools

will be identified for improvement if they are not raising student achievement

For quality of personnel• Highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals

FlexibilityWith Funding and Programs

• Up to 50% of grants received for teaching improvement,innovation, technology, safe and drug free schools for use under other provisions

• Title I schools with poverty > 40% can use Title I funds for ALL students

• Consolidation of all ESEA administrative funds• Experimental programs encouraged in selected

districts and states

Options

For Parents• School choice to be offered to parents of children in

schools identified for improvement (sifi)• Choice must be created/funded by districts • Supplemental services to be offered in the second year

of school improvement • Supplemental services offered to students with IEP’s in

schools identified for improvement

Research

Scientifically Based Research• Rigorous systematic procedures to obtain

reliable and valid data that is relevant• Peer reviewed or approved by panel of

experts through rigorous scientific review• Program and Intervention design must be

grounded in data

No Child Left Behind Act…

High Expectations for All Students, All Schools, All Districts…

NATIONWIDE

Goal 1All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014Student assessment results as primary indicatorMeasure adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward achieving the 12 year goalSeparate measurable annual improvement objectives Performance targets for students in aggregate and for student subgroups

Goal 2By 2013-2014 all students will be proficient in reading by the end of third gradeReading First replaces Reading Excellence Act

•Research based comprehensive reading instruction•Competitive grant process

Assessment of all K-3 students to determine who are at risk of reading failureAYP measured for all grade 3 students in the aggregate and in subgroups including students with limited English proficiency (LEP)

Goal 3All limited English proficient (LEP) students will become proficient in EnglishBy 2002-2003, English proficiency of all LEP students will be assessed annuallyEvery three years, districts receiving Title III funds must report

•% students making progress•% who have achieved English proficiency•% who have transitioned into non-LEP classrooms•% meeting same academic standards expected of peers

Goal 4By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers

Professional or standard state license and bachelor’s degreeNew teachers

•Elementary – bachelor’s degree, rigorous teacher test•Secondary – state certification, degree in teaching field,

rigorous teacher test in field Paraprofessionals

•2 years of higher education, associates degree or formal state-designed assessment

Goal 5All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning

Competitive Discretionary Grants•21st Century Schools•Partnerships in Character Education•Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Grants•Smaller Learning Communities

Goal 6

All students will graduate from high school Competency determination reflects

proficiency Graduated diploma requirements An improvement standard for students

alternately assessed

Difficulty attaining universal proficiency for specific student subgroups, for example severely and profoundly disabled students

The use of Title I funds for supplemental services may deplete resources for school based programs

Designation of some schools identified for improvement may result in unequal and inefficient distribution of school district resources

Implementation Concerns

Based on district need to have all schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress requirements, will it benefit districts to consider equalizing the distribution of the special education population?

Research Question

In order to analyze this question, the Special Education Leadership Training Project Study Group determined progress toward full competency made by all the elementary schools in Massachusetts Districts serving more than five thousand students. Based upon comparison of yearly Grade 3 Reading MCAS scores between 1998 and 2001, schools were rank ordered by improvement or regression from baseline.

Methodology

Schools at or above the 95th percentile of achievement in this rank ordered list were identified as high performing schools. Schools between the 47.5 and 52.5 percentiles were considered to be part of the median group. Schools at or below the 5th percentile were assigned to the low performing school group.

Methodology

To examine the effects of demographic balancing within a single school district this study reports data pertaining to a single urban Massachusetts school district with a number of schools in each of the three categories. Demographic information is summarized on the next two slides.

Methodology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%SPED

%Minority

%LEP

%FRL

Massachusetts Urban Public School District

Massachusetts Urban Public School District

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

High Middle Low

Performance

%SPED

%Minority

%LEP

%FRL

Percent SPED enrollment does not appear to influence a district’s student performance on MCAS. Students with disabilities represent a relatively small proportion of students at risk, so a policy of equalizing SPED enrollment across schools within districts is not likely to result in a more uniform distribution of student achievement scores among schools.

Findings

The Special Education Leadership Training Project

January, 2003

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor

Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate Professor

University of MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts-AmherstAmherst