Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Implementing NCLB
The National Education AssociationFebruary 13, 2004
Gary Orfield, Professor of Education & Social Policy
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University
Agenda Purpose and Design of NCLB National Study Goals of NCLB Key Findings from Four Reports Policy Recommendations Discussion
Purpose of CRP’s Study on NCLB Purpose of NCLB: “to close the achievement gap between
high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” within 12 years
Purpose of CRP Study is to understand How the whole system works to implement NCLB How the law actually works at state & local levels How the law impacts minority children and schools
Study Design
Select states with quite different educational systems and policies but with large minority enrollments
AZ, CA, IL, NY, VA, GA Two Urban Districts within Each State Except IL
(only Chicago) Qualitative Data Collection-Field Visits, Interviews,
Document Collection Quantitative Data Collection-Demographic and
Achievement for All Schools, 6 States
Bush Administration’s Goals NCLB Embodies 4 Principles:
Flexibility More Choices for Economically Disadvantaged
Families Accountability Focus on What Works
Key Question: What are the intended and unintended consequences?
(1) Bush Administration and Federalism
Little deference to local priorities or local decision making
Little consideration of state capacity Growing political resistance linked to lack of
resources, state fiscal crisis, and unreasonable requirements
(2) NCLB and State Accountability
Federal requirements impose “one size fits all” accountability model on states
States layered the federal accountability requirements on top of pre-existing plans
NCLB complicates state accountability Dual system produces conflicting messages, and
divergent definitions of proficiency AYP has disparate impact on minority schools Subgroup rules punish disadvantaged schools
School Ratings Are Confusing
Conflicting signals for schools Arizona, 289 schools identified as “needing
improvement,” but met the state’s performance targets and earned either a “performing” or “highly performing” label.
Virginia, 723 (40% of all schools) failed to make federal AYP goals while only 402 (22%) failed to meet state accreditation standards.
“Proficiency” Has No Common Meaning
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100
2001-02 (Start) 2004-05 (Int. Goal) 2007-08 (Int. Goal) 2010-2011 (Int. Goal) 2013-14 (Goal)
Intermediate Goals
Perc
enta
ge A
t/Abo
ve P
rofic
ient
(%)
Virginia
Georgia
Arizona (Grade 3 Only)
Illinois
New York
California
AYP Has Disparate Impact on High Poverty, High Minority Schools
81
59
91
24
85
35
69
44
87
28
77
31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NeedsImprovement
Meets AYP NeedsImprovement
Meets AYP NeedsImprovement
Meets AYP
California Illinois New York
State
Perc
en
tag
e
Minority
Low-Income
Subgroup Rules Punish Schools with Large Numbers of Minority, Low-Income, LEP, Spec. Ed. Students - CA
12
29
94
40
90
17
10 11
67
50
78
60
7
98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Asian Black Latino White SD LEP SWD
Subgroup
Per
cen
tag
e
Schools NeedingImprovement(n=1,205)
Schools MeetingAYP (n=7,460)
(3) More and Better Choices for Students in Low-Performing Schools? Choice and SES implemented primarily in
urban districts Low participation rates Ignores local district capacity to implement
programs: high-poverty districts have limited seats in low-poverty schools with high achievement levels
Burden of implementing choice falls on urban districts
District % Schools Within the District Offering Choice
% Schools in State
New York City 65% 27.1%
NY’s Schools
Chicago 34% 13.8%
IL’s Schools
Los Angeles 13% 7.4%
CA’s Schools
Richmond City 50% 3%
VA’s Schools
Participation Rates in NCLB Transfers In each of the ten districts fewer than 3% of eligible
students requested to transfer to a different school. NCLB transfer policy
1.9% of eligible students requested transfers in Chicago, and only 2.3% of eligible students requested transfers in New York.
Parents whose transfer requests were approved often chose to keep their children in the neighborhood schools. in Fresno, only 62 of the 111 students (56%) whose transfer requests were approved actually moved out of their neighborhood school.
High Poverty Districts Don’t Have Lots of Low-Poverty Schools
89
78
61
90
68
44
83
75
53
67
95
74
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fresno,CA Chicago, IL Buffalo, NY Richmond, VA
District
Perc
enta
ge
SendingActually ReceivingEligible Receiving
(4) Supplemental Educational Services Primarily minority students eligible Low participation rates, but greater demand
for SES than for NCLB transfer option Fewer than 16% of eligible students requested
and received services Irony of SES: creates more bureaucracy and
undermines push for “scientifically-based” education policies and interventions
Minority students are primarily eligible for SES
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Mesa, AZ Los Angeles, CA Chicago, IL New York City,NY
Richmond, VA Atlanta, GA
District
Per
cen
tag
e
Asian
Black
Latino
White
Yet There is Little Accountability and Evidence for Supp. Ed. Services Supplemental Educational Services
requirements impose administrative burdens on districts and schools
Without increase in resources Diverts resources away from poorly
performing schools Does not adhere to “scientifically-based”
research standards (111 times in statute)
Recommendations Revise NCLB in collaboration with education
professionals, recognizing the variation in conditions, and incorporating the best research on realistic time frames and rates of progress.
Revise subgroup accountability rules especially for LEP and disability categories & end double counting.
Recommendations Encourage multiple models for measuring
student learning and school accountability with an emphasis on progress.
Emphasize narrowing learning gaps for minority and poor students.
Recommendations Choice program should be limited to schools that are
not improving and should be only to better schools. Existing transfer policies, especially in desegregation plans should be given priority.
The supplemental educational services requirement should be suspended and replaced by experiments to determine whether and how this works. If it is resumed, it is resumed, it should be forward-funded rather than withheld from current year Title I budget.
