Running head: RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF TEACHERS

No Child Left Behind Report Card on

Adequate Yearly Progress

And

Recommendations

On

Retention and Recruitment of Teachers

By

Jim Burnett

Abstract

The retention and recruitment of teachers is becoming an increasingly serious problem in

many states across our nation. This paper examines data from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports as being unrealistic. My evidence shown in the paper

contends with Career and Technical Education as a recommended cornerstone of NCLB and

recommendations restructured professional development workshops equipping professionals in

the classrooms with the rigor and relevance to make AYP.

INTRODUCTION

The education of our nation’s youths has and will always be a never-ending saga of

dilemmas, outcomes, consequences, and ―hot spot‖ topics of how to successfully educate, train

and pass federal mandates of acceptability. A big-ticket item is the recruitment and retention of

highly qualified educators. More recently, shortages in schools have reached alarming highs

across the state and in national policy discussing how recruitment and retention of highly

qualified educators are addressed.

The fact that schools are experiencing shortages in classrooms is due in part of

accountability standards of Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) reports. AYP is at best restrictive,

at worst controversial. Since the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), teachers have

resorted to teaching the state assessments in fear of losing jobs whereas administrators seem only

concerned about test scores (report cards), which has shifted educational responsibility from

parents to the teacher.

According to a report submitted by National Education Association (2006), on emerging

trends under the Law's Annual Rating System, schools failed AYP this year compared to last

year. Schools found in need of improvement this year is slightly larger as compared to last year,

proportionately more school districts are failing to meet AYP, with many schools receiving top

ratings on state accountability systems that failed to make AYP. Moreover, school districts will

fail to meet AYP in the future and there will be virtually no funds available in the following

years to support turn around schools in need of improvement. Unfortunately, a major byproduct

of these trends incorporate classrooms filled with unmanageable disruptive, defiant and

disrespectful students. However, the biggest downfall of NCLB is the standardized

comprehensive test that utilized to assess basic core subject knowledge. AYP is guided by

regulations that monitor school’s process. The goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014 certainly

takes a giant leap forward from our past expectations for minimal competency of basic skills of

being the front-runner on a global platform that compares student achievements. Indeed, NCLB’s

goal of 100 percent proficiency is an unprecedented event. Not even the highest-scoring nations

that have participated in international tests of reading, math, and science are even close to

attaining it; can 100 percent proficiency be accomplished (Linn, 2000) ?

We must ask why AYP exists. According to U.S. Department of Education, Sec. 1111 (b)

(F), each state shall establish a timeline for adequate yearly progress. The timeline shall ensure

that not later than 12 years after the inception of NCLB, 2001-2002 school year, all students in

each group described in subparagraph (C)(v) will meet or exceed the State's proficient level of

academic achievement on the State's assessments (U.S Dept. ED., 2005).

In other words, the goal of the NCLB is to have 100 percent of America’s public school

students ―proficient‖ by the year 2014. Proficiency is measured through annual state-level tests

in reading and math in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. By 2007-08, states are

required to test in science at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12, respectively.

Safe Harbor - Non-Proficiency Targets

The State, school districts, schools, and each subgroup of 30 or more students for two

consecutive years must reach the performance targets for increasing proficiency in reading and

math to make AYP. However, there is an exception to that requirement. The State, school

districts and schools may still make AYP if each group that fails to reach its proficiency

performance targets reduces its percentage of non-proficient students by 10% of the previous

year's percentage (Colorado Department of Education, 2005)

In order to understand safe harbor parameters, schools systems need to calculate the

percentage of non-proficient students in question, multiply that percentage by (10), subtract the

result from the percentage giving the target proficiency for year two. Identify the percentage of

non-proficient students for the group in question for year one. As shown in the chart on the next

page, reducing the non-proficient students by 10 % would provide a school with safe harbor

(Colorado Department of Education, 2005). See chart below.

Year School White Hispanic Black Native

American/ Alaskan

Native Asian/ Pacific

Islander

Free and Reduced

Lunch

Students w/ Disabilities

English Language Learner

2002 Nonproficient Results

41.0% 38.0% 36.0% 40.0% 49.0% 39.0% N/A* 55.0% 52.0%

10% Reduction 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 4.0% NA** NA** N/A* NA** 5.2%

2003 Nonproficient Targets

36.9% 34.2% 32.4% 36.0% NA** NA** N/A* NA** 46.8%

2003 "n"* Size 216 72 66 50 9 19 N/A* 17 31

Number scoring in unsatisfactory range

71 21 20 18 NA** NA** N/A* NA** 15

% Nonproficient*** 32.8% 29.2% 30.3% 36.0% NA** NA** N/A* NA** 48.4%

Made Safe Harbor? YES YES YES YES NA** NA** N/A* NA** NO

Source: Colorado Department of Education

http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/safeharborex.asp

In order for a district or school to make AYP, the following requirements must be met:

Achieve a 95% participation rate in state reading and math assessments.

Reach targets for either proficiency or decrease non-proficiency in reading and math.

Reach targets for one other indicator - advanced level of performance for elementary and

middle schools in reading and math and graduation rate for high schools (New Mexico,

Public Education Department, 2004)

Colorado Department of Education, office of special services devised a chart illustrating

steps in states desiring to make AYP. See flow chart below.

Source: http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/images/flowchartbg.gif

According to the Texas Education Agency (2006), public school campuses, school

districts, and the state are evaluated for AYP. Districts, campuses, and the state are required to

meet AYP criteria on three specific measures: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, and either

Graduation Rate (for high schools and districts) or Attendance Rate (for elementary and

middle/junior high schools). If a school should fail to meet AYP after the first year the school

initiates a school improvement plan (SIP) and must perform a data analysis to determine the

cause(s) of not making AYP and amend the plan for success and implement strategies for

improving student achievement. After the second consecutive year of not making AYP, provided

the school is receiving Title I, Part A funding, that campus, district, or state is subject to

sanctions, such as offering supplemental education services, offering school choices, and/or

taking corrective actions (The White House, 2008).

After three consecutive years the school must provide supplemental services, including

after school programs, tutoring and summer classes. The school must also continue school

choices as well as provide transportation for students that transfer/enroll in a school not reported

as unacceptable. Disadvantaged students within the school may use Title I funds to transfer to a

higher performing public or private school, or receive supplemental services from a provider of

choice. After four years of continued failure of making AYP, the school and district must also

implement one or more of the following (The White House, 2008).

Replace staff as allowed by law

Implement a new curriculum

Decrease management authority of the public school

Appoint an outside expert to advise the public school

Extend the school day or year

Change the public school’s internal organizational structure (New Mexico, Public

Education Department: September 8, 2004, Working Draft).

After five consecutive years of not making AYP, in addition to sanctions listed for the

fourth year of not making AYP, the school district must develop a plan not limited to one or

more the following choices of:

Re-opening the public school as a charter school

Replacing all or most of the staff, as allowed by law

Turn over the management of the public school to the State’s Education Department

Make other governance changes (New Mexico, Public Education Department: September

8, 2004, Working Draft).

For schools failing to make adequate yearly progress more than five consecutive years

schools must implement a plan of restructuring. After six consecutive years of not making AYP,

they must implement their restructuring plans. In this last consequence for failure to make AYP,

schools and districts must choose from a menu of options designed to completely revamp the

school. By federal law, these options include the following: (The White House, 2008).

Entering into a contract to have an outside organization with a record of effectiveness

operate the school

Reopening the school as a charter school

Replacing all or most of the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make

AYP

Turning operation of the school over to the state, if the state agrees

Undertaking any other major restructuring of the school’s governance that produces

fundamental reform

Every student must reach proficiency levels, as determined by the state in which they

live, by the 2013-2014 school year (No Child Left Behind, Education Reform, but Not

Without Controversy, n.d).

The federal government has left states a great deal of discretion in overseeing turnaround

efforts at schools facing restructuring. Federal guidance issued by the U.S. Department of

Education in the summer of 2006 emphasized the need for schools to make large changes in

response to restructuring but left much of the details of decision-making and implementation to

districts and schools. States must provide assistance to districts and schools in improvement,

including schools in restructuring, but states have the latitude to determine the content and

intensity of this assistance. Approaches have varied in funding to assist schools in any stage of

NCLB improvement, including restructuring.

Simply put, NCLB is saying, ―Language arts and math (and eventually science) are so

important that the state must determine what students at specific grade levels must know and be

able to do and how well in those areas‖ (Resnick, 2003). ―One of the many controversial and

vexing elements of the law, especially among teachers, teacher unions, and other school officials

is the "highly qualified teacher" provision, which uses the lever of federal education dollars to

force states to raise teacher standards‖ (EJ707116, 2004).

NCLB is noteworthy for both its advocates and detractors. To its proponents, NCLB will

propel the country’s efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for low-income students

(The Center for Public Education, 2006). According to the Texas Report Card between the years

of 2003 and 2005, fourth grade proficiency increased a marginal 3 percentage points, fourth

grade mathematics increased an eleven percentage points, while black and white fourth graders

achievement gap narrowed by four percentage points in reading and five percentage points in

mathematics and Hispanic-white fourth graders achievement gap narrowed by four percentage

points in reading and seven in mathematics.

Many critics question its implementation or charge that it fails to acknowledge complex

factors influencing student learning. Some caution that a strong focus on test scores distort

teaching and learning in unsuccessful ways. Still others cite the lack of funding that

implementation of the law requires. Although Texas has shown improvements during the 2003 to

2005 school years;

From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act

contains results from a survey of 299 school districts in all 50 states, as well as

case studies of 42 schools, 38 of which are considered geographically diverse.

While the report says that a large majority (78 percent) of the districts surveyed

reported an increase in student achievement on state tests used by NCLB from

2003-04 to 2004-05 only 71 percent of districts also said that they have reduced

instructional time in at least one other subject to make more time for reading and

mathematics. In fact, in some districts, struggling students receive double periods

of reading or math or both — sometimes missing certain [other] subjects

altogether (Meserve, 2006).

According to a recent news release, Virginia is considering leaving the Federal Education

NCLB Act behind. Several teachers cited saying:

First, this program is an utopian ideal at best. It is a total failure at worst. The

government dangles the carrot ($$$) over the state head. The state, always hungry

for more cash flow, agrees to unobtainable goals. Political agendas aside, this

program never worked. The theory often fails for those children not properly

provided for at home. Even in the ideal setting, some kids are not going to aspire

to more than being a low paid laborer. Others will become the leaders of their

future. In my day, they stuck the non-performers and advanced students together.

The hope was the non-achievers would be inspired and lifted by the acheivers. It

never happened. It pulled the better students down as they waited for the slow

learners to catch up. Today, my child is in all advanced classes with like students.

The learning progression is much stronger and unimpeded. This ability and desire

to learn is a reflection of both strong parenting and natural talent, not NCLB or

SOL. The biggest hurdle is trying to undo the damage inflicted by the liberal

front. The brainwashing is substantia‖ (The Virginia Post, markg69046, 2008).

I know many teachers in several states, and they all agree that naive and arrogant

political appointees who -- regardless of a PhD in Education, had never actually

worked as public school teachers and were CLUELESS about how a classroom

needs to be run implemented NCLB. Some have even gone so far as to state that it

was deliberately designed to fail, artificially creating stress and crisis to serve

some nefarious hidden agenda. Mandating that Special Ed students (all

"mainstreamed" into regular classrooms now) be included in the testing is one

indication of this, as are the ridiculous piles of bureacratic paperwork that

EVERY teacher must now WASTE hours of time on EVERY DAY (SOLs,

lesson plans, student evaluations, etc). Because of the BOGUS threat of "lazy

teachers", ALL teachers are penalized, overwhelmed, and demoralized . . . and the

students suffer. Tell Bush he can keep those funds! (The Virginia Post,

ericab24359, 2008).

Like so many things in Washington, NCLB was a good idea on paper but a

complete failure in real world workings. Teaching to the test as well as other

problems are not only damaging to teachers and their ability to teach, but

damaging to our students. As a parent who has come head on with NCLB

guidelines, I will be THRILLED to see this go! Special Education students suffer,

children with chronic or undiagnosed illnesses suffer, and teachers certainly

suffer. Let the teachers take back control of their classrooms and the parents take

back control of their children! I FULLY support those hoping to eliminate NCLB

in the state. I hope that Virginia can set the trend for something so many other

states would like to do but don't yet have the support or guts to do! If enough

states start pulling out of this program, it will soon be an easily forgotten part of

the past. Let Virginia lead that charge! This is the best news I've read in months

(The Virginia Post, blue_rylie, 2008).

Having taught special education to severely disabled students in VA public

schools, I can say, without a doubt, that NCLB has major fundamental flaws… if

your child is not an average student, it WILL leave you behind. Gifted students

and students with special needs are not receiving the services they should. Why

should I be required to teach students who can not feed themselves and

accomplish basic self-care needs (bathroom, hand-washing, toothbrushing, etc) by

themselves the scientific method and algebra. Shouldn't we make sure they have

skills that they need to survive in the world? Isn't that what we want for all

students, to make sure that they can leave school and SURVIVE? Instead, I am

supposed to take children who can't adequately communicate and teach them

different forms of literature and the history of VA when they don't know that they

live in VA and can't count past 3 or recognize the letters in their own name? (The

Virginia Post, Reynne, 2008).

Special Education

Texas Education Agency will implement the US Department of Education (USDE)

required limits on the number of scores from alternate assessments counted as proficient in the

2008 (AYP) calculations. NCLB Act of 2001 requires proficient results from the TAKS-

Alternate (TAKS-Alt) assessment to be limited to a 1% cap and proficient results from the

TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M) limited to a 2% cap. With this said, schools in Texas as well as

other states will be forced to re-evaluate special education processes of qualifying students

(Texas Education Agency, 2008). Clearly, there are reasons that teachers may be dissatisfied

with recent changes and considerable stress of special education meeting AYP. Interviews

conducted and survey research suggests that teachers feel pressure to deliver high student test

scores (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001).

Texas Accountability

There is widespread consensus, Texas school funding system is in crisis and will need to

be reformed. School finance reform has been a major topic of public discourse in Texas since

1993. The legislature's Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance issued a final report in

which they recommended a number of major changes to the school finance system. In 2004, 300

school districts in Texas challenging the constitutionality of the Texas system of school finance.

The plaintiffs argued that because most school districts were at or near a state-imposed property

tax rate ceiling and because the share of state education funding was declining, most school

districts had inadequate funds to satisfy the student performance standards mandated by the

Texas Educational Accountability system (EJ695544, 2005)

Texas middle schools during the 2001-02 school year, reported fifty percent of

mathematics teachers taught out-of-field in middle schools where more than 75 percent of

students were economically disadvantaged. At middle schools with more than 75 percent

minority students, percentages of out-of-field math teachers were 53 percent. This pattern

repeated for middle school science teachers in those schools (Fuller 2002b). Texas high schools

during that same year, only 31 percent of Algebra I teachers were teaching out-of-field in high

schools where the percentage of economically disadvantaged students was more than 75 percent.

For schools having more than 75 percent minority students, the percentage of out-of-field

math teachers was 30 percent. This pattern again repeated throughout math, science and the

remainder of the core curriculum. In 2004, 63 percent of core subject teachers in low-performing

Texas high schools were assigned to teach outside their field. In contrast, only 18 percent of core

course teachers at high schools rated exemplary were teaching out of field (Fuller 2004).

The question of whether school districts have insufficient resources to meet the state’s

accountability standards, two cost function analyses was conducted. One study, entered into

evidence by the state of Texas, reached the conclusion that in aggregate, the level of education

funding in Texas is more than sufficient to meet performance goals consistent with the state's

accountability system. The other study, entered into evidence by the plaintiff school districts,

concluded that, in aggregate, Texas school districts would need at least $2 billion in additional

revenue to satisfy the requirements of the accountability system. The school finance system in

Texas was shaped by legislative response to a long series of court challenges to the Texas

educational finance system. The current system established in 1993 was designed to satisfy a

series of previous court rulings that declared the system of education finance unconstitutional. In

January 1995, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the school funding system established in 1993

satisfied constitutional muster (EJ695544, 2005)

Although there have been some small revisions to the school funding formulas since then,

the basic system of state aid remains in place today. Provisions have resulted in the school

finance system frequently described as the so-called Robin Hood system of education finance.

Given that Texas is characterized by a tremendous diversity in both student and school district

characteristics, Baker (2004) concluded that conducting a cost function analysis is the most

obvious fit to the challenges of educational cost analysis in Texas. The cost of education is

steadily rising over time due to the increase in the number of students that the public education

system in Texas must educate. Although enrollments in many parts of the country are projected

to decline over the next decade, projections by the National Center for Education Statistics

(2003) indicate that Texas will experience an average growth in public school enrollment of

about 1% per year over the next decade.

According to the Texas state demographer, if current demographic trends continue, the

student body in Texas will continue to become more Hispanic and lower income (Murdock et al.,

2003). School districts must increase spending to be able to meet the state's accountability

standards and satisfy the constitutionally mandated requirement that they provide an adequate

education. James Smith and Richard Seder (2004) argued that the school finance system is

unconstitutional because it fails to provide school districts with access to sufficient resources to

enable to them to provide an adequate education.

It is very difficult to determine whether any given school district is operating efficiently.

At a conceptual level, a school or school district is operating efficiently if it meets its stated

educational goals while spending as little money as possible. Although the concept of cost

minimization is straightforward, the actual measurement of efficiency is complicated because it

is exceedingly difficult to identify and quantify both the goals of each school district and all the

factors that influence the achievement of those goals and contribute to school district spending.

Despite these difficulties, it is important to note that any attempt to measure the costs of meeting

student performance goals deducts from costs any spending that is inefficient, namely, spending

that does not contribute to achieving those goals.

An authentic state finance system accepts the responsibility of their actions as well as

accountability. With the complexity of NCLB/AYP, merit pay incentives, highly qualified

teachers, teacher turnovers and shortages, Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)

vs. end of course exams, and the effects of high stake testing; Texas Educational Finance System

leaves much to deliberate; should our youth be considered expendable due to our State mirroring

inauthenticity?

NCLB History

Initially, NCLB initiatives introduced in the Elementary and Secondary School Act

designed by Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel and passed on April 9, 1965. President

Lyndon B. Johnson launched the 'War on Poverty' this being the most important educational

component of the war (Schugurensky, 2002). Through special funding, this act allowed

underprivileged and impoverished children a chance to receive education that met up to national

standards. The NCLB Act is built on four pillars, accountability for results, emphasis on doing

what works, expanded parental options and expanded local controls and flexibility (Toolkit,

2003)

Accountability for results

The first pillar of NCLB provided funds to states and school districts to provide a wide

variety of activities aimed at improving teacher quality through annual report cards issued to

states reporting teacher’s qualifications (Toolkit, 2003). Terms such as:

1. Highly Qualified Teachers must have:

a bachelor's degree

full state certification or licensure

prove that they know each subject they teach.

2. State Requirements: NCLB requires states to:

measure the extent to which all students have highly qualified teachers,

particularly minority and disadvantaged students

adopt goals and plans to ensure all teachers are highly qualified and

publicly report plans and progress in meeting teacher quality goals.

3. Demonstration of Competency: Teachers (in middle and high school) must prove

knowledge/competency in subject taught:

a major in the subject they teach

credits equivalent to a major in the subject

passage of a state-developed test

HOUSSE (for current teachers only, see below, no. 4

an advanced certification from the state

a graduate degree.

4. High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE): NCLB allows states

to develop an additional way for current teachers to demonstrate subject-matter

competency and meet highly qualified teacher requirements. Proof may consist of a

combination of teaching experience, professional development, and knowledge in the

subject garnered over time in the profession (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

Emphasis on doing what works

The second pillar of the NCLB emphasizes on doing what works. Students can succeed if

they are using the best materials, proven lesson plans and textbooks aligned with state standards

(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). For decades doctors have researched techniques

thoroughly for effectiveness and usefulness before using them on patients. The NCLB Act is

trying to apply the same theory to teaching, using well-researched effective techniques in the

classroom (Toolkit, 2003).

The current emphasis on ensuring that all students and schools meet high standards has

increased the demand for evidence of "what works" in education. As a decision-making tool, the

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) helps the education community locate and recognize

credible and reliable evidence to make informed decisions. The What Works Clearinghouse was

established in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to

provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a source of evidence of what

works in education (What Works Clearinghouse, 2004). An example of what works is the

Reading First program in which the national government has funneled millions of dollars.

The Reading First program helps teachers in early grades strengthen old skills and gain

new techniques as well. The President’s landmark bipartisan education reform enacted in

January 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reports achieving results. The most recent

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows an across-the-board improvement

in fourth and eighth grade reading and math scores, with minority students posting all-time highs

in a number of categories. Low-income second-grader’s reading scores increased 11 percentage

points from 2004 to 2006, as the number of students demonstrating reading fluency rose from 33

percent to 44 percent (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2008).

Expanded parental options

The third pillar of the NCLB Act is expanding parental options. Through the use of

testing technology parents can receive reports on their child’s individual progress. The testing

also informs the parents of the schools progress. These reports are comprehensive and include

achievement data broken down by race, gender, and students with disabilities. Furthermore,

included in the reports are the professional qualifications of the teachers within the schools.

Parents who have children attending schools who are in need of improvement are

presented with a few options. Instead of parents having their children stuck in poor performing

schools they are presented with the option of transferring their child to a school that has better

performance levels (Toolkit, 2003).

On the second year of the school needing improvement the parents are again presented

with the option to transfer and now the low-income families are also presented with the option of

free tutoring for their child. Transportation is provided for children who decide to transfer

schools. The children who are from the lowest income homes receive first priority. Children are

eligible for school choice when that child has been a victim of a violent crime on the grounds of

their current school. The NCLB also promotes the use of charter schools. Charter schools have

greater freedom from burdensome regulations in exchange for being held to high standards of

accountability (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Charter schools are designed to meet

student’s unique interests (e.g., vocational training, arts) and special talents or needs. Charter

schools are a vital alternative in districts where schools are having difficulty meeting the

standards set by the state (Toolkit, 2003).

Expand Local Control and Flexibility

The fourth pillar of the NCLB Act is to expand local control and flexibility. The NCLB

allows federal funds to be distributed to school districts and those districts may use those funds

in ways they deem necessary to fulfill the standards of that state. The NCLB encourages federal

money to be used to solve problems; this encourages local solutions for local problems. It

provides states and local communities the option of combining federal resources to pursue their

own strategies for raising student achievement (Toolkit, 2003).

The Act gives states and districts the flexibility to find original ways to improve teacher

quality, including alternative certification, merit pay and bonuses for people who teach in high-

need subject areas like math and science. With this flexibility rural communities can develop

programs that are different from urban programs thereby enabling each of them to target the

special needs for that particular community.

Eight Misconceptions of AYP

1. AYP measures the performance of a whole school based on assessment results in only

academic subjects, not Career and Technical Education, in most cases, only from students

in a few grades. Currently, only 20 states test students in both math and English/language

arts in grades 3-8 and once in high school.1 In the remaining states, AYP determinations

for an entire school are made based only on the performance of the grade or grades

tested, which may amount to only one or two grades per school (American Federation of

Teachers Union, 2008).

2. AYP measures the progress of students but does not track the same group of students

over time from one grade to the next or at the beginning and then at the end of the school

year; therefore, it is not a true measurement of progress or growth. Instead, AYP

determines progress by comparing different groups of children from year-to-year, for

example, by comparing today’s 4th graders to last year’s 4th graders. It’s akin to

requiring that track and field record broken every alternating year. But as testing

continues, just like in track, there will be strong cohorts of students in some years, which

will set levels that following classes cannot surpass despite their best efforts (American

Federation of Teachers Union, 2008).

3. Making AYP means that students in the school are progressing at a rate you’d expect

and desire—that is, that their progress is ―adequate.” First, the AYP formula doesn’t

track the same group of students over time, let alone an individual student over time.

Second, it requires schools to hit predetermined achievement targets regardless of

whether a school is starting far above or far below these targets. With neither the ability

to track student progress over time nor consideration of a school’s initial starting point,

the AYP formula can say little about school, and nothing about individual progress, over

time. Instead, this formula provides a snapshot of annual school-wide averages compared

to pre-set achievement targets. The ―adequacy‖ of school progress is about hitting or

missing predetermined targets. It reveals nothing about the rate at which individual

students are advancing throughout their years in school (American Federation of

Teachers Union, 2008).

4. Making AYP and achieving at grade level mean the same thing. The AYP formula and

performing at grade level aren’t necessarily linked. They are two different types of

measurements. Grade level is a band of acceptable performance, whereas AYP is a

specific target that may be set above, below, or within that range. Therefore, if all

students in a school were at grade level, the school could still fail to make AYP.

Likewise, a school with most of its students not achieving at grade level could still make

AYP (American Federation of Teachers Union, 2008).

5. Failing to make AYP means that the school isn’t making progress and is ineffective.

The word ―progress‖ in ―adequate yearly progress‖ is as much a misnomer as the word

―adequate.‖ AYP is about meeting fixed achievement targets, not judging whether a

school has made progress with its students. Schools that may have started far behind, but

that have made great gains, will not be given credit for this improvement unless they hit

statistically predetermined targets Experts have identified schools that didn’t make AYP

but have made more progress than schools that achieved AYP. Conversely, they’ve found

schools where student achievement is declining, yet they’ve still made AYP. So, it’s

inaccurate to say that a school not making AYP isn’t progressing and is ineffective with

its students. Like School A in Figure 1, a school may make great progress in a year let’s

say student achievement rises by 6 points—but if the predetermined target is 7 points, the

school won’t get credit because it still falls short of the state target line. Instead, it will be

named a school in need of improvement and subject to sanctions. And even if a school

starts above the target, as in School B, its performance can still go down and the school

will still be judged to have made AYP (American Federation of Teachers Union, 2008).

As illustrated in Figure 1, School A and School B will fall short of the projected AYP

target date of 2014.

Fig. 1

Hypothetical example of AYP and School Performance

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Year

Pe

rce

nt

Pro

fic

ien

t o

r

ab

ov

e X

10

Source: Robert Linn, University of Colorado at Boulder, National Center for Research on Evaluation,

Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), presentation made at the ETS 2003 Invitational Conference, New York City, Oct. 3, 2003. http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/downloads/8Misconceptions.pdf

6 AYP is about closing achievement gaps. The AYP formula is about 100 percent of

students tested hitting or exceeding fixed targets, for the school as a whole and for each

subgroup of students it serves. Data analyses have found that large achievement gaps still

remain, even in schools that make AYP. In a school where every single student is performing

at or above a given academic target, as shown in Figure 2, achievement gaps may still exist.

The AYP formula and the NCLB legislation do nothing to address these gaps directly

(American Federation of Teachers Union, 2008).

7. AYP is about getting all students in the country proficient in reading and math.

Comparisons across states using AYP results are meaningless because AYP is calculated

according to each state’s own standards and definitions of ―proficiency.‖ Proficiency

definitions differ widely from state to state. If a student were to take a reading or math

test in one state and make that state’s cut-off score for proficiency, there is no guarantee

that the same student would be declared proficient by another state’s cut-off score on a

different reading or math assessment. Accordingly, differences in ―percent proficient‖

among states reveal nothing about relative achievement of states. That South Dakota in

2003 identified only 4 percent of its schools as ―in need of improvement‖ using the AYP

formula, and Florida identified 78 percent of its schools does not mean that the schools

are worse in Florida or that the standards are lower in South Dakota. So, AYP results

can’t be used to say that one state is doing a better or a worse job educating students than

another. Moreover, AYP determinations don’t correlate with scores from the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a national test of academic achievement. For

instance, comparing NAEP scores with AYP determinations reveals some states with few

School B’s Performance

School A’s Performance

State’s AYP targets

schools labeled as not making AYP have low to average NAEP scores (e.g., Arizona,

Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia), while states with many schools labeled as not

making AYP have higher NAEP scores (e.g., Florida, Idaho, South Carolina) (American

Federation of Teachers Union, 2008).

8. AYP is about educational attainment. AYP is about statistics, not education. Rightfully

so, NCLB requires states to make accurate and statistically reliable accountability decisions.

Therefore, specific statistical safeguards regarding cut-scores, school size, how many

subgroups get counted, grades tested, and a host of other statistical parameters play an

intricate part in AYP calculations. Thus, AYP decisions are more subject to the laws of

statistics than to education. The bottom line: AYP is touted and used as a measure of school

effectiveness. Yet it fails to accurately measure the progress schools make. Measuring

progress fairly and accurately over time is what accountability should be about. The current

AYP formula is neither valid nor reliable and must be changed (American Federation of

Teachers Union, 2008).

Although the P in AYP stands for progress, AYP does not measure the yearly progress of

the same students over time. Not surprisingly, the evidence shown that whether or not a school

makes AYP does not necessarily depend on its effectiveness or the presence or absence or size of

achievement gaps. Moreover, although the A in AYP stands for adequate, the evidence also

shows AYP targets are not merely challenging but unrealistic. By 2014, almost all schools, very

many of them high performing students will have failed AYP. Indeed, no nation has been or is

close to meeting the kind of standard that has been set by NCLB. Therefore, for the sake of

preserving the legitimacy of accountability and, above all, in order to achieve legitimate and

realistic goals of NCLB, AYP must be overhauled into a system that sets realistic attainable

student progress goals (American Federation of Teachers, 2008).

Additionally, AYP must also provide progress reports showing schools achieve with the

same students over time reporting accurate accountability measures without excluding certain

groups of students by holding large and small schools and diverse and homogeneous schools

equally accountable for their performances. There must be a planned maintenance system of

reports on every student achievement by sub grouping low-income students as compared to their

more advantaged peers without schools declaring failures.

Furthermore, enable all states to meet and ensure federal enforcement of the current

NCLB requirement that state’s implementation of AYP meet professional standards for validity

and reliability According to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the adequate yearly

progress (AYP) formula is a highly inaccurate and arbitrary yardstick for measuring progress.

The law sets predetermined benchmarks for students' proficiency without taking into account

schools' starting points.

The testing of students with disabilities and English language learners is neither valid nor

reliable. Despite lofty heights established by NCLB from the beginning, if public education is

going to do what it should do for all kids, then the current AYP model needs to be eliminated,

zapped out of the legislation. It has not worked, and it cannot work no matter how much the

Federal Government bends over backwards to make the law palatable (AFT, 2008).

All studies and proposals for improving NCLB that are beginning to pour out of

associations, groups, and special interests show that we are spending an awful lot of time trying

to fix the AYP mess, when our best efforts ought to be focused on finding ways to demonstrate

accountability that are grounded in research. We are dealing with a failure of policy making. If

the public was to grade the Federal Government on their success and develop an AYP report, one

would only surmise the Government would be assessed as unacceptable and require sanctions on

them.

We need a better avenue to make sure schools are accountable; seems like a simple idea,

but until realistic goals are required of public education we are captured by political bureaucracy.

While NCLB calls for a single test for accountability, the task has not turned out to be simple,

nor have the results provided the public with clear messages. The AYP calculations under

NCLB, for example, frequently conflict with state accountability results, leading to confusion

and justifiable exasperation with the whole system. The AYP standard initially designed to be

easily understood by parents, educators and should not be muddied by variables that let schools

off the hook for poor performance in reading and math, even for just one group of students.

Instead, Congress should provide funding for the additional supports and resources, research has

identified as critical to academic success effective teachers empowered by rich curricula tied to

high-quality assessments of student learning and target those resources to the schools that need

the most help (The Education Trust, 2007).

Robert Schaeffer of Fair test (2008), for example, suggested the "no child left untested

act", and some academics quipped that the bill should be labeled "no psychometrician left

unemployed." In other circles, where there were concerns that the emphasis on testing would

narrow the curriculum and deprofessionalize teachers' work, the bill was referred to as "no

teacher left standing," and many social justice advocates feared the bottom line would be "same

children left behind." Underneath the wit and cynicism of these wordplays were serious concerns

about the enduring impact NCLB/AYP would have on schools, teachers, students, families, and,

in a larger sense, the American system of public education (National Center for Fair & Open

Testing, FairTest, January 25, 2008).

In testimony to the House Education and the Workforce Committee (Hearings on NCLB,

2004), Republican Chairman John Boehner announced that as a result of NCLB, the AYP test

scores all across the country are rising and the achievement gap is closing. His assessment of the

most recent report from the Education Commission of the States (ECS) was somewhat more

modest and mixed. Although the report concluded that "the overall picture is encouraging, the

ECS report found that although all 50 states are on track to meet at least half of NCLB's

requirements, only five states are likely to meet all of them. Similarly, the commission

summarizes many states are improving student achievement, but few would be able to meet

requirements concerning highly qualified teachers (ECS, 2004).

Even though provisions for AYP have begun to place substantial pressure on school

administrators and teachers, pressure is only likely to increase as large numbers of schools fail to

meet targets. With critics believing the true goal behind NCLB/AYP is to discredit the public

education (which will not meet the NCLP/AYP requirements) and thus prompt everyone to

approve school privatization through a voucher system (Cochran & Smith, 2005).

Since the inception of funding vouchers for students to attend private schools and or

charter schools, vouchers for private schools correlates to no minimum accountability, no

consequences for poor academic performance, no school accountability ratings, no financial

accountability, and no cutoff of state funding for failing private schools. Private schools must

administer the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test or other nationally

norm-referenced assessment instruments approved by the commissioner as well as provide

aggregated test results to the public (Private School Voucher Bills, 2005)

A more significant concern about the voucher system is the possibility of producing a

racial/ethnic balkanization of society. This theory precludes racist parents sending their children

only to schools, which are entirely of their own race; whereas under the current system parents

are required to send their children to racially integrated public schools. However, most private

schools even without public tax vouchers are already racially integrated. Wealthy parents seem

to value having a mixture of races, and some of the wealthiest private schools go out of their way

to provide scholarships/vouchers to disadvantaged minorities in order to provide a racially mixed

student body desired by the wealthy parents. And aside from such voluntary ―affirmative action‖

programs, anti discrimination laws could certainly be made a part of any large-scale voucher

programs for public education. (Private School Voucher Bills, 2005)

Clearly, there are reasons that teachers may be dissatisfied with the recent changes that

have occurred and are cautious about the future of public education. Interviews and survey

research suggests that teachers feel pressure to deliver high student test scores (Barksdale-Ladd

& Thomas, 2000; Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001).

Recruitment and Retention

With AYP, being the main determinant to investigate schools and their employees

(teachers, and administrator) that are reported as unacceptable, teacher recruitment and retention

has catapulted into oblivion. To assure a high-quality workforce more must be done to attract

highly qualified teachers, such as:

requiring states to develop induction systems ensuring support for new teachers

during their beginning years with ongoing job specific professional development

programs to maintain necessary skills

award incentive grants to districts in developing mentoring programs, require

state accountability indexing for all schools ensuring the appropriate level of

instruction and learning conditions are met

award monetary incentives to attract and retain high quality staff.

Recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers in isolated troubled schools presents

difficult challenges. Improved working conditions incentives are essential to o provide qualified

teachers for students. Surveys have shown teachers are more likely to come to schools and stay

provided there is an effective principal, appropriate facilities, opportunities for professional

development and collaboration, supportive conditions that include teachers in decision-making,

and the resources supporting struggling students. Along with these improved working conditions,

pay incentives attract and keep well-qualified teachers (American Federation of Teachers, 2007).

Human Resource Administrators scramble to hire educators that meet highly qualified

standards; which is a good thing, but now the question arises as to what kind of teachers are

considered highly qualified? According to the U.S. Department of Education, any degreed, fully

state certified and licensed, demonstrates competency as define by state and federal policy

elementary or secondary teacher who teaches a core academic subject (U.S. Department of

Education, 2003).

Technology

In our age of advanced technology, there is more competition than ever for students to

excel in technology. Nevertheless, as technology has become so easily accessible, students can

no longer be denied benefits technology offers. As educators, our goal is to provide as much of

real world integration into the learning environment. Students need the armor to prepare

themselves with today’s technology for tomorrow’s skills. As educators we are duty bound to

maximize each student’s potential to grasp as much technology based programs in our schools.

Although President Bush’s (NCLB) Act has established technology has a priority issue,

in his overview, his theme is to eliminate duplicate programs and integrate them into

performance base programs so schools will not submit multiple grant applications and bare

administrative burdens obtaining technology funding. Furthermore, President Bush advocates no

single program will facilitate comprehensive and integrated education technology strategies

targeting specific needs of individual schools (White House, President George W. Bush

foreword, 2008).

As we develop new programs for schools to maximize proficiency, the need for

professional development should grow in proportion. States need to begin implementing

programs to ensure that teachers meet NCLB's "highly qualified" definitions as required. Human

Resource Administrators, School Board member, Principals and Superintendents are faced with

filling teacher positions with highly qualified educators.

Recently, new legislation in Virginia is requiring teachers pass skills assessment known

as the Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel (TSIP) for re-licensure. These skills

assessment was created to meet the demands needed for teacher training courses. Public

Broadcast System (PBS) is a private, nonprofit media enterprise that serves the nation's

noncommercial television stations. PBS TeacherLine, is a funded grant from the U.S.

Department of Education, committed to helping teachers acquire the necessary skills needed to

meet students needs for a successful future; PBS TeacherLine, offers 80 courses. These courses

target teacher quality and addresses competency requirements under NCLB (Public Broadcast

System, 2008).

Effective schools have a commitment to excellence. This begins with a vision that shapes

and develops plans and focuses on the implementation, assessment, and new ideas such as NCLB

originally started out with. Schools all over the country are committed to transforming schools

into technology based learning centers. Curriculum and technology go hand in hand today

integrating basic and 21st century skills. Yet it’s often too confusing to fathom what technologies

will make an impact and how to integrate them. In this, technology is crucial, yet absolute, to the

success of NCLB. With technology, students gain experience in the use of the Internet. The

Internet provides educational opportunities for students and teachers, for teachers, new lesson

plans, and for students, interactive software that promotes learning into fun activities.

Rural schools are no longer isolated and have the same access as larger city schools

enjoy. The use of video conferencing to contact other schools and educators throughout the

country is becoming a mainstay. Students today embraced technology in their personal lives and

crave interaction with technology when they enter the classroom. Using technology to support

virtual collaboration and establish an online community serves as a useful tool to "keep the fire

burning" among planning groups and ushers positive resolution to the task at hand. Technology

does play and integral part in NCLB, resulting in tests that are easily processed, and organized.

Career and Technical Education

The White House unveiled its Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget request recently, which will

eliminate funding for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, as we know it.

According to the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) and the National

Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc), in

order to meet education and workforce needs, Perkins would need$1.8 billion for FY 2009

(NASDCTEc, 2008). The Perkins Act is CTE’s mainstay of funding that supports local

education programs connecting education and real-world careers. ―The Bush budget eliminates

$1.1 billion in funding for vocational education state grants, cutting off a pipeline to job

opportunities in emerging fields such as telecommunications and health care for millions of

students‖ (Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 2008).

Being a Career and Technical Education (CTE) teacher and having obtained a Master of

Arts in Career and Technical Education, President Bush proposal to eliminate the budget for

Career Technical Education fiscal year 2009, would mean that students would only be offered

three electives, which would include band, art, and physical education. Career and Technical

Education offers students employability skills directly after graduation. How can we truly say

that NCLB/AYP will pose success if they are not given the necessary skills to succeed, what

about inclusion students? These students are often hands on learners. If there is, no Career

Technical Education offered how are students able to obtain necessary skills needed to obtain

gainful employment. Career and technical education is a massive enterprise in the U.S.

Thousands of high schools, vocational technical high schools, area vocational centers, and

community colleges offer career and technical education programs.

Virtually every high school student takes at least one career and technical

education course, and one in four students takes three or more courses in a single

program area. One-third of college students are involved in career and technical

programs, and as many as 40 million adults engage in short-term postsecondary

occupational training‖(Office of Vocational Education, 2008).

Additionally, as a Career Technical Education educator I see the difference our programs

make with the students. Our president feels that the students can obtain training in community

colleges. Although, this can be true for some students it is not true of all students. As community

colleges have, higher criteria for acceptance and all students will not attend college.

We must look at the big picture. Do we really want our students to have employability

skills? If so, we must incorporate CTE programs and opportunities grades K-12. According to

President Bush’s overview proposed budget for CTE programs fiscal year 2009, there will be an

increase of funding for Adult Education but a total elimination of funding for the Career and

Technical Education State Grants, Career and Technical Education Programs, Tech Prep.

Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) Executive Director Janet Bray

commented,

We are extremely disappointed with the President’s decision to terminate Perkins

funding this year. Not only does CTE play a critical role in providing the

necessary skills and knowledge for students to remain competitive in today’s

workforce, but also it is an important part of school reform. These programs are

helping to reduce dropout rates through engaging ―hands on‖ coursework that

improves student understanding and application of academic knowledge. Funding

for the Perkins Act is essential, and it has already proven to be successful and

should not be shortchanged (Bray, 2008).

Fiscal year (FY) 2006 and 2007 saw Bush’s administration proposal to eliminate Carl

Perkins funding, whereas Congress rejected both proposals. FY 2008 budget, Bush proposed

slashing the program by 50 percent, but Congress recommended a $25 million increase to $1.3

billion; which was vetoed by President Bush. FY 2008 budget included a $20 million decrease

across-the-board-budget cuts in the final bill proposal. Since 2002, Perkins funding has not

received a substantial increase in funding. If CTE is to stay alive funding must be increased, not

eliminating career and technical education programs continue their quest to meet the education

and training needs of the global economy (National Association of State Directors of Career

Technical Education Consortium, 2008). The main focus targets funding for high priority

programs instead of small categorical programs that have indirect or limited impact (U.S.

Education Department, 2008). Those of us working with CTE students know the importance of

this education. Those who do not know what we do cannot understand what it takes this country

to be successful. Figure 1, next page illustrates the need for CTE programs grades K-12.

Fig.1

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004

Our government is a cobweb of fractions pulling in opposite directions with the winner

being the hardest puller (usually lobbyists). Where is CTE on the tug-of-war of funding?

Politicians are urged, swayed, sometimes bought by organizations, whose primary agenda is their

personal gains. How do we show and influence Washington with our agenda of a better life for

our children through their participation in Career and Technical Education? Maybe if CTE were

labeled as a commodity, such as Pork Barrels, it would receive the support of our legislators. The

Perkins program plays a critical role in providing the skills and knowledge essential for a

competitive workforce; NCLB without CTE would be similar to taking a shower without water.

Quality CTE programs are linked to rigorous academic instruction just as core subjects are

required through NCLB and are improving student engagement through "real world" application

preparing our youths for successful careers.

CTE teachers take on numerous roles in order to work effectively in their schools.

Among their many roles they are program managers, instructional designers, facilitators of

learning, and student advisors. In recent years, there has been growing criticism of traditional

teacher education programs, which some critics embrace a theoretical approach that leaves

graduates ill, prepared for the realities of the classroom (Hartocollis, 2005).

Other critics point out that there is a lack of formal teacher training programs for in-

demand content areas such as math, science, foreign language, and special education as well as a

lack of graduate faculty to train teachers in these critical needs areas (Boehner, 2004). Still others

note that current teacher training programs are simply not able to provide the number of teachers

needed for American schools. According to Simon (2005), "In the last five years, 500,000 new

teachers have taken jobs in the nation's elementary and secondary school classrooms. In the next

five, a half million more will be needed as the student population swells and aging boomers

accelerate their march to retirement" (Simon, 2005, p 27).

NCLB Act calls for a qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of the 2005-2006

school years (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st session, Public Law 107-110).

Challenges such as these have led to a movement towards alternative methods of teacher

certification. Currently, 47 states and the District of Columbia offer alternative routes to teacher

certification with programs, such as Teach for America, that detours from the traditional and fast

track prospective teachers into the classroom (Hartocollis, 2005). In some states, new methods of

teacher certification allow prospective teachers to obtain certification by passing a standardized

content and pedagogy test, thus sidestepping traditional teacher training programs.

These alternative teacher education models tend to be mentor based with learning taking

place mostly at the school site and away from colleges of education (Georgia Professional

Standards Commission, 2005). A report recently released by the Center on Education Policy

reveals that the four-year-old No Child Left Behind Act has indeed served to shine a light on the

importance of professional development of highly qualified educators grades K-12. Beyond that

basic fact, though, any real broad-based impact on the training of educators remains

inconclusive.

While the majority of states reports that NCLB has served to ratchet up the quality of

professional development, most districts say it's had "minimal" effect. Whatever the truth,

concerns about NCLB are sure to remain front and center in the foreseeable future. The

definition of highly qualified as it applies to educators will evolve with changing technology and

the increasing emphasis on accountability and customized learning. How should districts plan for

successful and sustained technology-infused with NCLB meet criterion set by this act? David

Jakes of Technology & Learning contends eight steps for a highly qualified program which

consists of:

Think Multiples

Effective programs recognize that not all educators are equal when it comes to applying

technology to the learning process. A truly effective professional development program may

have multiple courses occurring simultaneously, while addressing the needs of multiple types of

learners. For example, Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, requires every

teacher to have a core level of technology competency and demonstrate mastery on a formal

assessment. To prepare teachers for this, technology training and integration manager Charlene

Chausis offers a dozen 30-minute sessions a week in the school's staff development lab. Chausis

contends, "Knowing that our staff has achieved a core level of proficiency allows us to move

ahead and focus on the topic of integration," (Jakes, 2006)

Teachers can also elect to take the "Power Rangers" program, in which they make a

commitment to participate in eight hours of professional development each semester in exchange

for a laptop computer. This group of teachers then meets with Chausis on a monthly basis to

develop integration strategies that can be extended to the entire staff. To prepare for professional

development, the assessment of educator skill level and readiness is absolutely critical. eListen

by Scantron provides a Web-based survey for collecting data that can be used to plan for

professional development. Coupled with district goals and expectations for student achievement,

survey results provide a data-driven foundation for moving forward with training (Jakes, 2006).

Align with Goals

It's key that schools or districts identify technology standards for students and teachers

and frame those standards as learning outcomes for students. A sound procedure is for

administrators to employ formal data collection strategies to evaluate teacher mastery of

standards and their impact on actual instruction as required by NCLB being highly qualified.

These standards should drive further professional development planning. District 99 in Downers

Grove, Illinois, has developed the Learner Standards for Technological Understanding, which

provides a set of expectations for student technology knowledge.

The standards are composed of three domains, each with its own set of subordinate

components. Domain one addresses functional literacy, what tools should students knows how to

use? Domain 2 is based on the application of those tools to the problem-solving process. For

example, can students use those tools to answer an essential question that has meaning to them?

Finally, domain three identifies how students should use technology tools ethically. To maintain

a consistent and focused program, district technology professional development activities are

based on the same standards (Jakes, 2006)

Evaluate

The purpose of any professional growth activity should produce a change in educator

behavior that results in increased student learning. Districts that offer high-quality professional

development employ a thorough evaluation sequence that provides multiple types of data about

the strengths and weaknesses of its programs and the link between professional development and

changes in student performance. In his book Evaluating Professional Development; University of

Kentucky Professor of Education Thomas Guskey outlines a comprehensive five-step evaluation

program. The components are:

Participants' reactions. Evaluation at this level identifies the appropriateness of a

program's content, process, and context. Was the content appropriate? Was the

presenter knowledgeable? Was the coffee hot?

Participants' learning. What are participants' beliefs toward the professional

development topic, and has the event changed those attitudes and beliefs?

Organizational support and change. Does the organization have the tools,

services, and policies in place to support the training experience once teachers

return to the classroom?

Participants' use of new knowledge. Did participants implement what they

learned? Did it change classroom practice?

Student learning. Did the experience improve student learning? In most cases, that

should be the most important question to ask (Gusky, 2006).

Get Off-Site

Highly qualified training programs support teachers as well as administrators attendance

at technology conferences, seminars, and workshops. Mobility can be a healthy experience.

Conference attendance exposes participants to cutting-edge ideas to integrate back to the school

district stimulating discussion and growth. Because not everyone can get away, districts should

develop procedures and tools to extend the conference experience to those not attending the

actual event. Most conferences now have wireless access, so a blog makes a handy tool for

attendees to post notes, ideas, and resources for staff members not in attendance (Jakes, 2006).

Dedicate Space

Having a dedicated space for technology professional development sends a definite

message: Bill Burrall, coordinator of instructional technology for the Marshall County School

System in West Virginia, has made this a priority. The district's two-year-old Digital Learning

Center delivers organization-wide professional development to enhance productivity and a wide

range of workplace skills. Teachers can participate in a session on integrating Discovery's United

Streaming content, administrative assistants can increase their spreadsheet skills, and

maintenance staff can learn how to search for parts online (Jakes, 2006).

The Mnemonics system enables presenters in remote locations to deliver instruction,

adding to the staff expertise. Training is available during the school day, after school, and

summers. Burrall stresses that though the center's tools may not all be cutting edge, they work

well together, which is key. The center has 16 workstations; a presentation machine that's

connected via a T-1 line to a 77-inch diagonal Mnemonics Interactive Presentation Manager; a

digital projector; an Epson document camera; surround sound; and TV, DVD, and VCR feeds.

The instructor/presenter has the advantage of controlling the workstations through AB Tutor

Control for maximum presentation flexibility and efficiency (Jakes, 2006).

Extend Training

All too often, professional development consists of one-shot experiences that last from

one to several days mostly during the summer. But professional development doesn't necessarily

have to be that way. District 99 in Downers Grove, Illinois employs learning teams and learning

clubs. Educators in learning teams receive five two-hour releases during school days following

an initial training session. The purpose is to extend the conversation and the learning beyond the

session. Participation is voluntary, and educators are required to pair up and make a presentation

to the group. Learning clubs are structured similarly but occur after school (Jakes, 2006).

Hunterdon Central High School in Flemington, New Jersey has just completed its first

year of a tablet PC initiative, which was supported by three professional development activities

extended over the course of the school year. Teachers in the first cohort attended two days of

professional development in the summer and then could attend drop-in days for one-on-one

support with the school's information systems personnel. Additionally, participants attended

monthly meetings focusing on classroom applications. By moving beyond the "one-shot"

experience, schools can take advantage of their in-house expertise while building leadership,

internal capacity, and professional learning communities (Jakes, 2006).

Invest in Staff

The development of internal capacity to lead professional development activities is

crucial to the long-term success of a learning community. Nevertheless, this expertise takes time.

District personnel must be given opportunities to lead professional growth activities and the

administrative, clerical, and financial support to get the job done. Most important, school

districts must provide mentor relationships for beginning professional developers to help them

plan and evaluate professional growth activities.

A technology integration specialist, who is available for the planning and delivery of all

training, supports professional development in Marshall County Schools. "This year the district's

technology integration specialist is based at our largest school, supporting 90-plus teachers,"

Burrall says.

We have seen an incredible increase in teacher comfort levels with technology

integration and excitement about integrating it into instruction." Chausis sums it

up very well . "You can invest money in hardware and software, but technology

that is not easily accessed and implemented will not be used. It is critical for

schools to also provide the 'peopleware' — on-site support personnel who can

provide 'just in time' assistance once the technology is in place (Chausis C.,

2005).

Encourage Community

The Internet is flooded with ways to communicate with others, blogs, wikis, podcasting,

etc. make it possible for educators to define their personal learning environments. These tools

allow educators connectivity with peers and obtain resources viable to technology. More

importantly, developing these communication avenues allows dialogue, and reflection, which are

critical to professional growth and development activities. These resources can be the raw

material for rapid personal growth, because they allow educators to see what others are writing,

reading, and finding on the Web. This type of customizable learning experience is attractive to

Linda O'Connor, science and technology coordinator of School District 205 in Elmhurst, Illinois.

She contents "I get to decide what's important and how it will help me, and I get the opportunity

to learn and be proactive among other supportive professionals," (O’Connor, L. 2008)

Monadnock Community Connections School (MC2) in Keene, New Hampshire,

coaching and feedback are critical to professional development. Each teacher maintains an online

portfolio; weekly reflections are e-mailed to Principal Kim Carter, who responds to each

educator. Dialogue and reflective practice is the key, as is the development of small professional

learning communities (Technology & Learning, 2006).

MC2 is based on the belief that all members of the educational community are

continuously learning, that all practice is founded on research and best practices,"

Carter says. The tenets of a professional learning community are intentionally

integrated throughout our community...all staff write a weekly reflection for me,

and I write weekly reflections for the staff as well as for the community (students,

parents, and interested stakeholders). Operating in the context of a professional

learning community provides all staff members with pervasive, shared support

systems while simultaneously modeling the behaviors we seek to develop in our

students (Monadnock Community Connections School, 2008),

Conclusion

NCLB/AYP affects all aspects of school relations as notated throughout our textbook,

Human Resources Administration in Education. It would be erroneous to preclude NCLB only

affecting certain domains of human resource administration; this law affects all aspects of

education both good and bad. Rebore (2007) contends teachers are lost to the education

profession because of improper mismanagement of Professional Development. The NCLB Act

will be around for at least the next decade, how we deal with it will still be controversal, but

hopefully less restrictive. However the effects good or bad, we are stuck with it to make it work

in our schools.

This act is incredibly crucial in determining the type of education the youth of America

will receive in the following years through infusing the recommendations of CTE programs with

core subjects. Virtually all aspects of education are tied into the NCLB, and for our children’s

sake, we hope that this act is effective in teaching our youth. AYP must fuse CTE courses into

academia. Student success in all grades that is based upon on alternate years, same students, are

amiss and does not tell the whole story. It is the contention of this writer, success can only be

achieved when the school community buys into a program that truly demonstrates acceptable

standards.

True reformation of education in the United States demands constant attention to schools,

teachers, administrators, communities, stakeholders and success rates of the students. All reform

begins with a vision, shaping infrastructure to reporting data. As a nation, we are duty bound to

be cognizant of realistic goals and reforms that achieve maximum potential with students. Our

focus should be on student success rather than experimentation. All reform is dependent on the

quality of the people employed to promote success and reform.

As this report contents, recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers through

innovative approaches in Professional Developments, infusion of technology, requiring states to

develop induction systems for new teachers during there beginning years, incentive grants to

districts in developing mentoring programs and provide monetary incentives to attract and retain

high quality staff would be an excellent start. Obviously much more needs to be accomplished,

and No Child Left Behind presents challenges as well as opportunities to enhance quality

education.

Let us draw our attention on building what is right, by doing so, the present focus on

offering unanswered questions, criticisms without solutions, will cease. The nuts and bolts for

holding schools accountable by AYP alone, does not demonstrate true assessment of student

achievements across our nations from front running schools to schools furthest behind. Because

AYP has been proven neither fair nor accurate, it is the opinion of this writer; the credibility of

NCLB/AYP’s accountability system has been compromised.

References

American Federation of Teachers Union, (2008), Misconceptions of AYP, ―hot topics‖,

permission granted for used and Retrieved March 9, 2008 from

http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/downloads/8Misconceptions.pdf

Amis, K. (2001). Bush says reading is first. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved: March

3, 2008 from: www.edexcellence.net

Baker, B. D., Taylor, L., & Vedlitz, A. (2004). Measuring educational adequacy in public

schools (Report prepared for the Texas Legislature Joint Committee on Public School

Finance, The Texas School Finance Project). Retrieved October 13, from

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/roadmap/tsfp/Reports/Measuring%20Educational%2OAdequac

y.pdf

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. and Thomas K. F. (2000). "What's at Stake in High-Stakes Testing:

Teachers and Parents Speak Out." Journal of Teacher Education 51(5)

blue_rylie, (2008), The Virginia Post, Retrieved March 5, 2008 from

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/virginia-considers-leaving-federal-education-act-

behind

Boehner, J. (2004, May 20). House Education Committee members introduce package of bills to

expand support for schoolteachers. Retrieved Mar. 5, 2008 from

http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/second/05may/teachersbills052004.htm

Bray, J. (2008), Association for Career and Technical Education, Retrieved March 8, 2008 from

http://www.careertech.org/press_releases/show/18#

Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2004), Education Can Pay, Retrieved Mar. 8, 2008 from

http://www.careervoyages.gov/careeradvisors-doeseducationpay.cfm

Burrall. B. (2008), Marshall County School System in West Virginia, Mnemonics system,

Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://boe.mars.k12.wv.us/BillPage/bb.htm

Cochran-Smith, M., (2005), NO Child Left Behind, 3 years and Counting, editorial, Retrieved

Mar. 12th, 2008, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3957646/No-child-left-

behind-3.html

Chausis, C., (2005), Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, Technology

Coordinator, Retrieved March 11, 2008 from

http://homepage.mac.com/charlenechausis/CHAUSIS_techforum06.pdf

Colorado Department of Education, (2005), Safe Harbor, Retrieved March 16, 2008 from

http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/safeharborex.asp

Colorado Department of Education, (2005), Retrieved March 16, 2008 from

http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/images/flowchartbg.gif

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, (2008), FY 2009 Bush

Budget: Another Year of Drastic Education Program Cuts, Funding Reductions and

Broken Promises, Retrieved March 16,2008 from

http://edworkforce.house.gov/publications/2009BushBudgetEdSummary.pdf

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Education Commission of the States, (2004), Retrieved March 16, 2008, from

http://www.pasenategop.com/committees/ed/2007/ed-update-040907.pdf

Educational Resource Information Center, (EJ707116, 2004), Journal Teacher Quality,

Controversy, and NCLB, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation, Heldref

Publications, 1319 Eighteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC. v78 n1 p26 Sep-Oct

Retrieved Mar. 5, 2008 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nf

pb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ707116&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_

0=no&accno=EJ707116

Educational Resource Information Center, (EJ695544, 2005) Journal, Assessing the Use of

Econometric Analysis in Estimating the Costs of Meeting State Education Accountability

Standards: Lessons from Texas, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Journal Subscription

Department, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262, Retrieved March 6, 2008

from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nf

pb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ695544&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_

0=no&accno=EJ695544

ericab24359, (2008), The Virginia Post, Retrieved March 5, 2008 from

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/virginia-considers-leaving-federal-education-act-

behind

Fuller, E. (2004) ―Distribution of Teacher Quality in Texas Public Schools.‖ Austin,

Texas: Department of Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin

Retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://docs.texasaft.org/publications/PB_TeachQual.pdf

Fuller, E. (2005b), ―Using Teacher Quality Data to Evaluate Teacher Preparation Programs.‖

(paper presented in New York, New York, Center for Teaching Quality, Retrieved March

5, 2008 from http://docs.texasaft.org/publications/PB_TeachQual.pdf

Georgia Professional Standards Commission, (2005), 505-3-.07Alternative Routes Retrieved

Mar. 5, 2008 from http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherCertification/Documents/alt_routes.asp

Guskey, T. ( 2006), Evaluating Professional Development; University of Kentucky Professor of

Education, Retrieved Mar. 9, 2008 from

http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Inst/S00B98BD1-00B9920B

Hartocollis, A. (2005). Who Needs Education Schools? The New York Times, Education Life, p.

24.

Haycock, K. (2007), President, The Education Trust, Retrieved March 16, 2008, from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901247_pf.html

How To Make Yearly Adequately Progress, AYP, (2003), flow Chart, Retrieved March13, from

http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/images/flowchartbg.gif

Jakes D. (2005), Staff Development 2.0, Retrieved March 16, 2008 from

http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=187002843

Linn R. L., (2000) ―Assessments and Accountability,‖ Educational Researcher, 29, 2, pp. 4-16.

Retrieved March 12, 2008 from http://www.aft.org/pubs-

reports/downloads/teachers/WhatsProficient.pdf

Linn, R.L., (2003) University of Colorado at Boulder, National Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), presentation made at the ETS

Invitational Conference, New York City, Fig.1 chart, Retrieved March 10, 2008 from

http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/downloads/8Misconceptions.pdf

Markg69046, (2008), The Virginia Post, Retrieved March 5, 2008 from

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/virginia-considers-leaving-federal-education-act-

behind

Meserve, S. (2006), Technology Learning, article on NCLB Progress Report, Retrieved Mar. 9,

2008, from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=187002759

Monadnock Community Connections School, (2008), MC2, Keene, New Hampshire, Retrieved

March 8, 2008 from http://www.mc2school.org/

Murdock, S. H., White, S., Hoque, M. N., Pecotte, B., You, X., & Balkan, J. (2003). The new

Texas challenge: Population change and the future of Texas. College Station, TX: A&M

University Press.

National Assessment of Educational Progress, (2008), Retrieved Mar. 8, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/programs/naep/index.html

National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, (2008), Press

Release - Bush FY 2009 Budget Neglects Career Technical Education, Retrieved Mar.

11, 2008 from http://www.careertech.org/press_releases/show/18#

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Projections of education statistics to 2013,

Section 1, Table 4: Enrollments in Grades K-12 in public elementary and secondary

schools, by region and state, with projections: Fall 1994 to Fall 2013. Washington, DC:

Author.

National Center for Fair & Open Testing (2008), Robert Schaeffer of Fair test, Retrieved March

13, 2008 from http://www.fairtest.org/NCLB-After-Six-Years

National Education Association, (2006, January) NCLB AYP—Emerging trends under the 'No

Child Left Behind’ law, Retrieved March 14, 2008, from

http://www.nea.org/esea/ayptrends0106.html

New Mexico, Public Education Department, (2004), Working Draft, Retrieved March 13, 2008

from

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/acc.assess/accountability/dl/ayp.q.and.a.8.29.2004.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law No: 107-110, 10th Cong. (2001). Retrieved Mar.

5, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

No Child Left Behind, (2008), President George W. Bush, overview of No Child Left Behind,

Retrieved March 08, 2008 from, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-

behind.html#4

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat. 1425 (2002), Retrieved March

13, 2008 from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200607/ai_n16717225/pg_1

No Child Left Behind, (2008), overview. U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved: March 4,

2008 from: www.ed.gov

No Child Left Behind, Education Reform, but Not Without Controversy

Students - Highly Qualified Teachers - Parents - Schools – AYP, Retrieved March 15,

from http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/

O'Connor L. (2005), Science and Technology Coordinator of School District 205 Elmhurst, Ill..

Retrieved Mar. 8, 2008 from

http://il.schoolboard.net/dman/Document.phx?cmd=download&documentId=cc18805135

154210

Office of Vocational Education, (2008), Retrieved March 11, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/index.html

Private School Voucher Bills, (2005), Retrieved March 13, 2008 from

http://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2005/05/summary-of-private-school-voucher.html

Public Broadcast System, (2008), PBS TeacherLine, Retrieved Mar. 3, 2008 from

http://www.pbs.org/teacherline

Rebore, R. (2004), Human Resources Administration in Education (8th

ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Resnick, M. (Fall, 2003). NCLB Action alert: Tools & tactics for making the law work. National

School Boards Association: Alexandria, Va., Retrieved March 14, 2008 from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1505669/k.D349/A_guid

e_to_the_No_Child_Left_Behind_Act.htm

Reynne, (2008), The Virginian-Pilot, Retrieved March 5, 2008 from

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/virginia-considers-leaving-federal-education-act-

behind

Schaeffer R., (2002), No Child Left Behind After Six Years: An Escalating Track Record of

Failure, Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www.fairtest.org/NCLB-After-Six-Years

Schugurensky, D. (2002) History of Education Retrieved: March 4, 2008 from:

http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1965elemsec.html

Simon, C. C. (2005, July 31), Those Who Can, and Can't. The New York Times, Education Life,

p. 27.

Smith, J. R., & Seder, R. C. (2004). Estimating the cost of meeting state educational standards

(Report submitted to the plaintiffs as evidence in West Orange-Cove et al. v. Neeley et

al., District Court of Travis County, Texas). Davis, CA: Management Analysis &

Planning, Inc.

The Center for Public Education, (2006), A guide to the No Child Left Behind Act, Pamela

Karwasinski, editorial associate of the Center for Public Education, and Katharine Shek,

a legislative analyst for the National School Boards Association, Retrieved March 15,

2008 from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1505669/k.D349/A_guid

e_to_the_No_Child_Left_Behind_Act.htm

The Virginian-Pilot, (2008), article: Virginia considers leaving federal education act behind,

excerpts Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/virginia-

considers-leaving-federal-education-act-behind

Technology & Learning, (2006) Retrieved Mar. 9, 2008, from

http://www.techlearning.com/shared/printableArticle.php?articleID=187002843

Texas Education Agency, (2008), Adequate Yearly Progress Report, Retrieved Mar. 9, 2008

from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/

Texas Education Agency (2008), Adequate Yearly Progress Report, Retrieved March 9, 2008

from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008/index.html.

Texas Report Card, (2003- 2005), Retrieved Mar. 9, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/difference/texas.pdf

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Washington, (2003) An overview, Retrieved

Mar. 5, 2008 from http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/

U.S.Department of Education, (2004), Office of the Deputy Secretary, No Child Left Behind: A

Toolkit for Teachers, Washington D.C. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2004), The four Pillars of NCLB, Retrieved March 12, from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html

U.S. Department of Education, Sec. 1111 (b)(F), (2004), Retrieved March 12, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html

U.S. Department of Education, (2008), Department of Education, Career, Technical, & Adult

Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request, President George Bush. Retrieved: March

4, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/justifications/m-

careered.pdf

What Works Clearinghouse (2002) Retrieved March 6, 2008 from: www.w-w-c.org

White House, The. President George W. Bush foreword,(2008), Retrieved March 08, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html#9