President Bush signs the NCLB legislation (reauthorization of ESEA) passed by Congress

No Child Left Behind (ESEA): Instructions and Resources for Paper and Reflective Statement
NCLB Paper Assignment Instructions and Rubric NCLB Information Overview and Topics and Issues General Bibliography Topic-Specific Bibliographies Professional Teaching Standard #11 General Guidelines for Writing Reflective Statements 2-3 4-6 7-8 9-35 36 37

NCLB/ESEA Paper Assignment

You are going to write a paper that shows your understanding of issues/controversies related to some aspect of the NCLB/ESEA legislation. The guidelines are: Information/Resources for the Paper You must use as least 6 different sources of information. These can be scholarly works, government documents, news articles, interviews with teachers, etc. However, keep in mind that you must use studies/research/data to provide the best kind of evidence to support any claims you make in your paper. There is a lot of information available about NCLB/ESEA, but it can be difficult to find the most relevant information and some of it is difficult to comprehend. For that reason, Ive developed bibliographies for the most common topics/issues selected by students and those are located at the end of this document. Topics/Length The paper should be about 6 pages long. (Longer is OK.) This means that you cannot possibly write about every aspect of NCLB/ESEA. You must focus on a narrow topic and just one or two issues related to that topic. Im providing a lot of information for you to usethe major topics and issues are identified below and Ive provided bibliographies related to these topics. YOU must still decide on the specific issue/problem that you want to address and then select the most appropriate information sources. You are NOT limited to the topics listed below or to the resources in my bibliographies. However, if you want to do a paper on a topic that doesnt appear to be listed here, PLEASE let me know. Paper Format/Structure The basic format of the paper is: o Introduction (Basic contextual and background information, and a clear problem/issue statement or question); o Summary of specific parts of NCLB legislation related to the problem, data related to the problem o Perspectives and Positions re the problem; evidence to support these o Conclusions (Changes in NCLB/ESEA with reauthorization and/or other solutions to problem) o Your perspective/opinion re the problem and solutions, and a rationale o References: Include complete citations. http://citationmachine.net o See rubric on page 3 for more specifics Reflective Statement for Assessment Portfolio This paper serves as an artifact for PTS #11 in your assessment portfolio.You must write and submit a reflective statement along with the paper. Guidelines for the reflective statement are found later in this handout. A high quality paper is required; it is very possible that you will rewrite the paper to meet the expectations for completion. Attending to the in-class presentation on NCLB/ESEA and using the provided resources will reduce the likelihood of the need to do this. 2

Grading Rubric for CI405 Papers

Criteria 1. Identifies and states the problem, question, or issue 2. Identifies and considers context and assumptions Mastery Level
The problem, question, or issue is clearly identified at, or close to, the beginning of the paper. Appropriate supporting details are provided. The focus remains on this problem, issue, or question throughout paper The audience is assumed to be unfamiliar with the topic; adequate contextual information is concisely and clearly included (who, what, when, where). Any common assumptions are stated as assumptions; paper addresses assumptions at some point. Evidence of search, selection, and evaluation skills; all major relevant data included; recognizes bias and the limitations of correlations. Data and evidence are critically evaluated; primary sources (original research) used to the extent possible.

Acceptable Level
The topic (problem, question, problem) is reasonably clear; minor problems with missing information or off-focus information.

Unacceptable
The topic (problem, question, issue) of the paper is unclear AND/OR too many topics or topic is too broad for limitations of paper

Contextual information Missing major information lacking in minor respects. related to context (showing Minor lack of clarity lack of understanding of related to assumptions. topic). Assumptions stated as fact.

3. Presents, assesses, and analyzes supporting data/evidence

Some reliance on secondary or nonprofessional sources (when primary and professional are accessible). Imperfect but reasonable critique of data/evidence when there are clear limitations in applicability or clear bias. Major perspectives are included but not presented and/or supported as well as they could be. May have an unsupported claim or two but not frequent and not major.

Relies completely or primarily on secondary sources and/or nonprofessional sources when these are accessible. ). No critique of data/evidence when there are clear limitations in applicability or clear bias. Missing a major perspective or major misinterpretation of a perspective. No support for claims for perspective.

4. Identifies and includes major (differing) perspectives related to issue or problem 5. Identifies and assesses implications, consequences, solutions 6. Develops and presents own perspective or position

Major (differing) perspectives are identified and presented clearly, including supporting data/evidence. No unsupported claims about perspectives or data. Analysis of perspectives is accurate and respectful. Major solutions to problems, answers to questions posed, etc. are clearly identified based on use of sources. Viability and practicality and broader implications of solutions are considered. Uses I in presenting own perspective. Perspective is clearly presented and justified, primarily with data and evidence included in paper, but also integrating prior knowledge and experiences when relevant.

A major solution/answer Fails to identify one or is not clearly or fully more major implications, presented but is present; solutions, or most but not all viability consequences and practicality issues are addressed Own perspective is included but could have been somewhat better supported Own perspective is not included or is very vague or is unsupported

In general language does In some places language 7.Communicates Language clearly and effectively communicates ideas. Grammatical, not interfere with obscures meaning; lacking effectively spelling, and typographical errors are minimal. Organization is clear; transitions enhance presentation. All sources cited correctly using a standard consistent format . communication. A few errors but not distracting. No major problems with organization or formatting. Most sources are cited and used correctly. in clarity AND/OR frequent grammatical, spelling or typographical errors AND/OR poorly focused and organized AND/OR inappropriate citation format.

NCLB/ESEA Brief Legislative Overview and Paper Topics

You MUST write the NCLB/ESEA paper as though your reader does not know anything about NCLB/ESEA, so all papers must include or paraphrase the information in the following two paragraphs somewhere at the beginning of your paper. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, federal legislation passed by Congress and signed into law on Jan. 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, provided federal funding for education programs primarily for disadvantaged students. NCLB continued to define and describe these education programs and ADDED new accountability mandates (see next page) that must be met by states in order to receive funding for the programs. The primary goal of NCLB is to close the achievement gaps between various student demographic groups; i.e., (in more concrete terms) all states are required to bring all students to state-designated proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014. For the rest of the paper, you will focus on the parts of the legislation and the issues related to the specific topic you choose for your paper. The following is a complete list of all the parts (titles and subtitles) of the legislation. Ill review many of these in class via a powerpoint presentation. Knowing the title and name can be helpful in searching for information online.
Title 1 Part A -- Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (MOST NCLB funds are here; formula funds provided at the state level for state distribution to schools. Most states spend most Title 1 money on remedial reading and math education programs and staff at the elementary school level) Part B -- Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants Part C -- Migrant Education Part D -- Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk Part E -- National Assessment of Title I Part G -- Advanced Placement Part H -- School Dropout Prevention Part I -- General Provisions Title 2 Part A -- Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund Part C -- Innovation for Teacher Quality Part B -- Mathematics and Science Partnerships Part D -- Enhancing Education Through Technology

Title 3 Part A -- English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act Part B -- Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs Part C -- General Provisions Title 4 Part A -- Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Part C -- Environmental Tobacco Smoke Title 5 Part A -- Innovative Programs Part C -- Magnet Schools Assistance Title 6 Part A -- Improving Academic Achievement Title 7 Part A -- Indian Education Part B -- Public Charter Schools Part D -- Fund for the Improvement of Education Part B -- Rural Education Initiative Part C -- Alaska Native Education Part B -- 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Part B -- Native Hawaiian Education

Title 8 Impact aid: federal assistance for certain local education agencies impacted by federal property acquisition Title 9 Definitions and administrative rules Title 10 Part A -- Repeals Part C -- Homeless Education Part E -- Higher Education Act of 1965 Part G -- Miscellaneous Other Statutes Part B -- Redesignations Part D -- Native American Education Improvement Part F -- General Education Provisions Act

Overview of Major* NCLB Mandates Annual testing. States must test students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and

mathematics, and also test these subjects once in high school. By 2007-08, they had to also test students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. The tests must be aligned with state academic standards. A sample of 4th and 8th graders in each state must also participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program in reading and math every other year to provide a point of comparison for state test results. Academic progress (AYP). States must bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state (reading and math) tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools must meet state "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) targets toward this goal (based on a formula spelled out in the law) for both their student populations as a whole and for certain demographic subgroups. If a school receiving federal Title I funding fails to meet the target two years in a row, it must be provided technical assistance and its students must be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. Students in schools that fail to make adequate progress three years in a row must also be offered supplemental educational services, including private tutoring. For continued failures, a school would be subject to outside corrective measures, including possible governance changes. (Note: Schools that do not make AYP do NOT lose federal funding.) Teacher qualifications. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school must be "highly qualified" in each subject he or she teaches. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally means that a teacher is certified and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money must be "highly qualified." * There are also a significant number of lesser mandates Impacts/Controversy/Paper Topics Given its scope and detail, the No Child Left Behind Act has been the source of considerable controversy and debate in the education community (and among the general public). As the laws effects began to be feltparticularly with about 10% of schools not making AYP each yearsome educators and policymakers soon began to question the feasibility and fairness of its goals, time frames, mandates, funding, and many other things. NCLB was up for reauthorization in 2007but this was not doneso it has continued unchanged for the past two years. It is again up for reauthorization. For your paper, you will select one specific issue related to NCLB and focus on that issue providing an overview of different perspectives on the issue, finding related recommendations for changing NCLB when reauthorized, and giving your opinion on if and how you think the legislation should be changed. It can be very difficult to find good information related to NCLBmost of the data and research is found online and produced by the government and/or organizations with some interest in education. For this reason I will provide both a general bibliography and bibliographies re specific topics. Ive listed here the topics for which I currently have bibliographies BUT you are NOT limited to these topics. If youre interested in something else, you just need to let me know and Ill help you find resources. Accountability and Testing (p. 9) Achievement under NCLB (and Achievement Gaps) (p. 13) Impact of NCLB on Curriculum and Instruction (p.19) AYP and School Improvement and Sanctions (p. 15) Charter Schools (probably more emphasis and funding with reauthorization) (p. 17) Highly Qualified Teachers (mandates and grants) (p.22) NCLB and Early Childhood Education (more emphasis/funding with reauthorization?) (p.21) Education and Assessment of LEP (limited English proficiency=ELL) students (p. 26)

Education and Assessment of SWD (students with disabilities) (p. 34) NCLB and Rural Schools (p. 30) Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs (p. 32) The Title 1 Reading First and Early Reading First Programs (p.28) After selecting a topic, you need to identify and select one or more problems/issues related to the topic to address in your paper. Examples of Issues/problems related to Testing/Achievement/C&I/LEP/SWD

Concerns about validity and quality of state tests, differences between states in tests and proficiency levels, differences between states test results and NAEP results. Different kinds of tests? More or less testing? Test all subjects? Different kinds of measurement of proficiency? National test? Suggestions for changes in testing for reauthorization? Concerns about effects of testing on curriculum (what is taught) and instruction (how it is taught)What impacts? How widespread? Good or bad? Are ASSUMPTIONS supported by data?

Assessment of LEP studentswhat is done now, what are concerns, what proposed changes? Are services for LEP students adequate? Assessment of students with disabilities, special needswhat is done now, what are concerns, what are proposed changes? Examples of Issues/problems Re AYP

Concerns about how AYP is determined; proposed alternative growth model, is this better? Do something entirely different to assess school progress? More subjects?

Concerns about timing, implementation, and effectiveness of current improvement efforts and sanctions for not making AYP Examples of Issues Re Teacher Quality Is current mandate meaningful (definition of/requirements for highly qualified)? Should the requirements for HQT be expanded to include some sort of regular evaluation of teaching performance and/or a requirement to show high student test scores? How has this mandate impacted teachers and schools? What are the special problems for rural and high-poverty urban schools? Should changes be made in the use of the Title 2 professional development grant money? Should the grant money in Title II be used to help schools set up teacher evaluation/merit pay systems? Examples of Issues Re Achievement and Achievement Gaps The PRIMARY goal of NCLB is to close achievement gaps. To what extent has this goal been addressed? That is, to what extent have the achievement gaps between middle class Caucasian/Asian students and other student subgroups been decreased? Overall, what impact has NCLB had on reading and math achievement? Which data is accurate, state test data or NAEP data? Can more be done to address the achievement gap? Examples of Issues Re Reading First: Concerns about programs used and how selected, data on impact of programs on reading achievement; are programs effective? Changes suggested? Examples of Issues Re School Safety: Is this a useful effective component of NCLB? What impact has it had? More or less emphasis? Keep funding or not? Changes? Examples of Issues Re Charter Schools Are public charter schools better or worse than standard public schools with regards to student achievement and/or general quality of education? Are charters a good way to achieve useful innovations in education? Should NCLB provide greater support (or less or the same) for charter schools? Examples of Issues Related to Early Childhood Education

Research shows that children who get behind in preschool years tend to stay behind for the rest of their life; also shows that early childhood intervention programs are a cost-effective way to improve educational outcomes for high-poverty students.

However, federal funding for early childhood is a hodgepodge of different programs via different legislative acts, including NCLB. Should federal funding be greater, federal involvement stronger and more coherent with regard to early childhood legislation? Via NCLB (intended to provide supplemental funds for K-12) or separate legislation?

Resources and Research Re NCLB: General Bibliography ERIC: Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/

This is the primary bibliographic search tool used in Education and it should always be one means of finding information, especially research. ERIC provides abstracts of articles published in journals as well as things that are published only on-line. If the publication is available in full online, then ERIC will provide a link to it. If this is not the case, then click on find in a library. If the UI library has the publication, then you can usually access it online through the library. If UI does not have it, then you can get it through interlibrary loan. If the abstract is complete and provides actual data, then the abstract may suffice as a reference but this is not typical. U.S. Department of Education NCLB/ESEA Home Page http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml There are many links hereto the actual legislation, to summaries of the legislation, to primary data related to education, etc. Since the Department of Education is highly supportive of NCLB, this is one place to find a positive perspective, success stories, supportive data and studies, etc. NCLB (Title 1) (and other) Evaluation Projects (impact of NCLB): http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html Obama Administration Reauthorization Proposal: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html National Center for Education Statistics http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ This site has NAEP test data. When anyone talks about the impact of NCLB at the national level, they are using NAEP data. Illinois State Board of Education http://www.isbe.state.il.us/nclb/default.htm Basic information re NCLB and specifics for Illinois CEP: Center on Education Policy http://www.cep-dc.org/ CEP is a supposedly independent (read relatively unbiased) education advocacy organization that publishes reports and studies on many education topics including NCLB. Most of these represent survey-type research, but it appears to be well done, making these studies one of the better sources of evidence-based information re NCLB. Includes studies of specific aspects of NCLB like teacher quality, impact on instruction, ELL and special ed provisions, etc. National Access Network No Child Left Behind Section http://www.schoolfunding.info/federal/federal.php3 The NCLB policy brief is a bit dated, but generally provides the basic information about the provisions of NCLB that is much easier to understand than the Department of

Education section. The two resources sections have links related to specific aspects of NCLB and the reauthorization links are especially useful for finding the various recommended changes to NCLB that have been proposed by various groups of people. National School Boards Association Center for Public Education http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org The NSBA has some biases but the findings from research sections are good, with reviews of several areas relevant to NCLB. Open research and practice, then use list on left side of page. Education Sector www.educationsector.org An independent and supposedly nonpartisan thinktank re education; publishes on-line research reports and commentaries. Start in the issues sectionAccountability/NCLB and Teacher Quality. Some good info not found in many other places. The Aspen Institute Commission on NCLB http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policywork/no-child-left-behind Billed as a bipartisan, independent effort dedicated to improving NCLB. A large new report for 2009 re all aspects of NCLB; some shorter older reports on specific topics. Hoover Institute http://www.hoover.org/research/institutional-initiatives/americaneducation and Education Next http://educationnext.org/ Opinion and research articles reflecting a conservative perspective on education; online education journal titled Education Next Thomas B. Fordham Foundation www.edexcellence.net Also opinion and research articles with a conservative perspectivereasoned and evidence-based. (The organizations position re NCLB is stated very concisely in a short Open Letter to President Obama dated 12/18/09.) The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, two national organizations representing teachers, have useful information on their websites regarding NCLB and teachers, as well as other aspects of NCLB. Education Week www.edweek.org Education Week is a printed weekly periodical but also has a website that is only available in whole to subscribers. However, subscribing to the free email newsletter allows free limited access to the website.

Bibliography: Accountability and Testing Issues/Concerns Concerns: The validity and fairness of the current assessment (testing) system has been questioned. Specific concerns include: the differences in standards, test difficulty, and proficiency levels from state to state; the alignment between standards and tests; the method or model applied when using test scores to determine AYP; the limited content and skills assessed (memorized facts vs. critical thinking); differences between state test scores and NAEP scores, etc. There are also concerns about the purported impact of testing on curriculum and/or instructionthere is a separate bibliography for this. You cannot address all testing concerns in this paper; so select one or two; develop an appropriate problem statement or question related to what you select. Legislative Mandates re Testing Include a clear and complete and accurate description of the accountability requirements; who is tested when and in what; who develops the assessments and how; define AYP and proficiency levels, describe determination of yearly goals, mention subgroup requirement (disaggregation of data), www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html and AYP on page 11. Another (clearer and more complete) source of this basic info is: Testing and Adequate Yearly Progress. There is one mistake here: reading and math also must be tested once in high school. This source also mentions (and helps clarify) many of the issues, but has no supporting data/evidence. You can read the current administrations proposal for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA and see if you can figure out what it says about testing. My reading is providing money for new standards and tests (already underway) and continue testing required only in reading and math. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html Critiques/Studies re Standards, Tests, and/or Proficiency Levels National Center for Education Statistics, (2009). Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007 Executive Summary. AND open the report and look at Figures 2 and 3. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2010456.asp American Federation of Teachers (2006). Smart Testing: Lets Get it Right, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/pb_testing0706.pdf and Sizing up State Standards 2008 http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/sizingupstandards0308.pdf

 Fordham Foundation, The Accountability Illusion (2009), http://edexcellence.net/index.cfm/news_the-accountability-illusion and Cronin, J., et al. (2007). The Proficiency Illusion, Open the PDF and use the Executive Summary (NOT the Forward). www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=376 US Government Accountability Office (2009), Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: Enhancements in the Department of Educations Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09911.pdf Education Sector Reports: (2007) The Pangloss Index: How States Game the No Child Left Behind Act and other reports. (Open the full report) Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability, 2009, Derek Neal, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Paper (Chicago study) Stateline.org, Do state tests make the grade? (2008) Include a Positive Perspective Yeh, Stuart, 2005, Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n43/v13n43.pdf Recommendations for Changes in Accountability and/or Testing Broader Bolder Approach to Education Campaign, 2009, School Accountability: A Broader Bolder Approach http://www.boldapproach.org/report_20090625.html Center on Education Policy, Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Recommendations from the Center on Education Policy (2007) http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=223&documentFormatId=3896 and Better Federal Policies Leading to Better Schools (2010), http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=301&documentFormatId=4592 US Government Accountability Office, 2009, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: Enhancements in the Department of Educations Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09911.pdf Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2010). Performance Counts: Assessment Systems that Support High-Quality Learning, CCSSO publication. http://flareassessment.org/resources/Paper_Assessment_DarlingHammond.p df One Solution to some problems: National Standards and Assessments (and an issue on its owncould address just this one in a paper) This solution relates to the current differences between states re standards, assessment, proficiency levels, etc. It is important because it is favored by the current Department of Education and is on its way to being adopted. Forty-eight states were involved in developing Common Core Standards in reading/language arts and math; almost 40 states (as of September 2010) have agreed to adopt these standards, including Illinois. There are also two groups of states (including Illinois) currently involved in developing 10

tests based on these standards. However, not everyone thinks that national standards and assessments are a good thing. Common Core State Standards Initiative, www.corestandards.org (Open voices for support, watch Lisa Fretzin) Achieve, Achieving the Common Core Standards, http://www.achieve.org/achievingcommoncore Fordham Institute, 2010, The State of State Standardsand the Common Core 2010, http://edexcellence.net/index.cfm/news_the-state-of-state-standardsand-the-common-core-in-2010 Jennings, J. (2009). National Standards, American School Board Journal http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=286&documentFormatId =4361 Center for American Progress: The Case for National Standards, accountability, and Fiscal Equity, http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/standardsbased_framework.pdf Cato Institute (Coulson, Andrew), 2009, The Case Against National School Standards, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10446 Hoover Institute (Julian, Liam), Against National Standards - Let the states decide what to teach- they'll do less harm, http://ednews.org/articles/againstnational-standards---let-the-states-decide-what-to-teach--theyll-do-lessharm.html National Assessments (based on national standards) In September, 2010, the federal Department of Education awarded two Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC) received $170 million and the SMARTER Balanced Consortium received $160 million. Illinois is a governing member of the PARCC. Education Week article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/09/02/03assess.h30.html? tkn=STXF3o%2BWzoxpIrGUEf%2BwCzfarN%2BXcVmqPKIU&cmp=clpedweek Duncan, Arne, Beyond the Bubble Tests: The Next Generation of Assessments -Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks to State Leaders at Achieve's American Diploma Project Leadership Team Meeting , SEPTEMBER 2, 2010, http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/beyond-bubble-tests-next-generationassessments-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-state-l AYP Models Controversy (Growth Model) If you address this, do it as a complete issue on its own. Scores on state tests in reading and math can be used to provide comparisons between schools, districts, etc., but most importantly, they are used to measure progress toward proficiency goals from year to year (AYP) for individual schools. There is more than one way to do this, and each state has their own specific model for using scores to measure progress.

11

One type of model (status) compares test scores to one specific set of goals for the year for an entire state, that is, the goal for all schools for this year is to reach 60% proficiency in reading and 65% in math. Another model (improvement) compares the scores of this years students at one grade level (say second grade) to the scores of last years students (in second grade) and requires a certain amount of progress (for example, a 10% increase in scores). Finally, there are several types of growth models (including value-added models) that measure the progress of the same group of students or individual students. All of these models are based on the same testing systema different model just means a different way of calculating AYP. The issue/problem here is that Ed at first didnt allow growth models, allowed for piloting them, and now there is controversy about whether or not these are better in some way and should be used by all states. Not an easy topic but you can tackle it if you want. There are different definitions of growth model used by different authors. Center for Public Education growth model info, a great starting point for this topic, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5119575&ct=6857917&notoc=1 U. S. Department of Education Evaluation of the 2005-06 Growth Model Pilot Program MS WORD (833K) Status vs. Growth: Distributional Effects of School Accountability Policies, 2009 Helen Ladd, Douglas Lauen Paper Mathis, William. (2006). The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLBs School Evaluation System. Read the executive summary and parts of the paper; this report does NOT support the growth model as an improvement over current methods,
www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/GLC_AYP_Mathis_FINAL.pdf

USGAO, 2006, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06661.pdf (Its important to pay attention here to the discussion of the definition of growth model on page 2.)

12

Bibliography Impact of NCLB (To Date) on Student Achievement and/or Achievement Gaps The primary goal of NCLB is to raise overall achievement and close achievement gaps the problem here is related to whether or not NCLB has made any progress in doing so and/or whether or not there are any realistic prospects for doing so in the future. For this topic you can focus on overall achievement, the achievement gaps, or both. One important aspect of this topic is that you must discuss two sets of datastate achievement data as measured by state tests, and national data from NAEP. Basic Testing Guidelines (include info on how achievement is measured) Department of Education www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html Achievement Data: National Level (NAEP) vs. State Level NAEP (government) data: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov Open a subject matter on left; then click on results by demographic groups. Look at the charts for race/ethnicity, family income, SWD, and ELL. The default is 4th grade; click on grade 8 above the chart for the 8th grade data. For high school, see the long term trend data below or find it at this website; it includes 17-year-olds. The Nation's Report Card: Long-Term Trend 2008 ,The National Center for Education Statistics, April 2009.This report presents a long-term analysis of NAEP assessments for reading and mathematics. Center on Education Policy, 2009, State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08 Part 3: Are Achievement Gaps Closing and is Achievement Rising for All? http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=292&documentFormatId =4388, State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08, Part 2: Is There a Plateau Effect in Test Scores? http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=282&documentFormatId =4386 and State Test Score Trends Through 2007-2008 Part 1: Is the Emphasis on "Proficiency" Shortchanging Higher- and Lower-Achieving Students? Various Perspectives on the Achievement Gap and NCLB

13

Education Trust (2010), Gauging the Gaps: A Deeper Look at Student Achievement, http://www.edtrust.org/dc/publication/gauging-the-gaps-adeeper-look-at-student-achievement NEA Achievement Gaps website, www.nea.org/achievement/index.html, various reports, including The Impact of Achievement Gaps on State and National Economies Research Report: The State of the Achievement Gap, 2007, The Aspen Institute Commission on NCLB, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/commission %20on%20no%20child%20left%20behind/AchievementGap1.19.07.pdf McKinsey & Company, The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in Americas Schools: Summary of Findings, April 2009. http://edequality.org/content/pages/mckinseyreport Several research studies from a 2009 conference related to the impact of NCLB on achievement, etc., http://www.caldercenter.org/nclbconference.cfm U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement: Special Supplement to The Condition of Education, 2009, National Center for Education Statistics Council of the Great City Schools, 2008, Beating the Odds: An Analysis of Student Performance and Achievement Gaps on State Assessments: Results from the 2006-2007 School Year http://www.cgcs.org/publications/BTO8_Revised.pdf Human Resources Research Organization, 2008, Are Advanced Students Advancing? Examining Achievement Trends Beyond Proficiency http://www.humrro.org/corpsite/sites/default/files/downloads/biblio/Are %20Advanced%20Students%20Advancing--Examining%20Achievement %20Trends%20Beyond%20Proficiency.pdf Fordham Institute, 2008, High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/20080618_high_achievers.pdf Gorey, K. 2009, Comprehensive School Reform: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Black-White Achievement Gap Narrowing, Education Policy Analysis Archives 17:25, 2009. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/708/816

ResearchCauses/Factors re the Achievement Gap ETS, Barton and Coley, 2010, The Black-White Achievement Gap: When Progress Stopped, http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/picbwgap Berliner, D. (2009) Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, Great Lakes Research Center. www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Berliner_NonSchool.pdf Dearing, McCartney and Taylor, Does Higher-Quality Early Childhood Care Promote Low-Income Childrens Math and Reading Achievement in Middle Childhood? Child Development Sept/Oct. 2009. A synopsis can be found here: www.newamerica.net/blog/early-ed-watch/2009/better-child-care-could-help-mathand-reading-scores-through-elementary-school-1 with a link to the full study.

14

Barton & Coley, (2009), Parsing the Achievement Gap II (Causes, factors), ETS.
www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICPARSINGII.pdf

Suggestions for Change, Reforms to Address Continuing Problems WestEd, Reforms That Could Help Narrow the Achievement Gap
www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/819

Center on Education Policy, Better Federal Policies Leading to Better Schools (2010), http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=301&documentFormatId =4592 Center for American Progress, 2008, Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students and What Federal Policy Can Do About It
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/comparability.html

Bibliography: AYP and/or AYP Sanctions For the AYP growth model issue, or any issues related to the tests used for determining AYP, see the first bibliography re testing and accountability on page 11. (The growth model is a topic on its own.) Non-test issues related to AYP include some issues related to the disaggregation of data and the N-size (number of students) required for a subgroup to count for AYP; the occasional tendency for only one subgroup to fail while all others do well and the legitimacy of designating the entire school as failing; the practice of backloading AYP goals, that is, setting goals low initially with the hope that students will make huge gains later. There are also many issues related to the sanctions for not making AYP. NCLB Guidelines re Testing and AYP Include at the beginning of the paper a brief but clear and complete and accurate description of the accountability requirements: that is, who is tested when and in what; who develops the assessments and how; define proficiency levels and AYP toward proficiency levels, tell how yearly AYP goals are determined, describe subgroup requirement (disaggregation of data); and state AYP sanctions at 2,3, and 5 years of not making AYP, etc. One source is www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html and AYP on page 11, but the Mathis paper below probably has a more understandable overview AYP Data and Issues Mathis, William. (2006). The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLBs School Evaluation System. This paper addresses the growth vs. status model issue, issues related to sanctions, and some other additional issues re AYP. A great chart re the sanctionsvery clear overview www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/GLC_AYP_Mathis_FINAL.pdf State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX-Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report (2010), Data re schools making AYP or not, etc. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclbaccountability/nclb-accountability-highlights.pdf Center on Education Policy, How Many Schools Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress Under the No Child Left Behind Act? (Updated August 2010),

15

http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=303&documentFormatId =4663; Many States Have Taken a Backloaded Approach to No Child Left Behind Goal of All Students Scoring Proficient, http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=238&documentFormatId =3886 AYP Sanctions (School Choice, Supplemental Education Services, Restructuring): Data, Research on Use and Impact, Changes Chapell, et. al., (2010), Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Provision of NCLB: A Synthesis of Provider Effects, http://education.odu.edu/tcep/docs/FinalSESReport.pdf Students' Use of Tutoring Services, by Adequate Yearly Progress Status of School, This Statistics in Brief reports on the use of tutoring services among public school students enrolled in grades K-12 in 2007. Download, view and print the report as a pdf file. November 2009 Department of Education Evaluation Study "State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume VII: Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services." January 2009. This report presents trends on the implementation of Title I parental choice options from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. Center on Education Policy, 2009, Improving Low-Performing Schools: Lessons from Five Years of Studying School Restructuring under No Child Left Behind, http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=300&documentFormatId =4588, A Call to Restructure Restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in Five States and State Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services under the No Child Left Behind Act, (December 2009), http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=184&documentFormatId =4143 Missed opportunities: Supplemental Services in the Central Region States [Research in Brief]. (2007). REL Central: Denver, CO. http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/schoolimprovementreform/REL1-08-01-RR_SESResearch_In_Brief.pdf Easy Way Out -- "Restructured" Usually Means Little Has Changed - Sara Mead, Education Next, Winter 2007 Government Accountability Office report, 2007: Education Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Status Supplemental Education Services Under NCLB: Who Signs Up, and What Do They Gain? Carolyn Heinrich, Robert Meyer, Gregory Whitten, 2009, Paper | Presentation 16

Supplemental Educational Services and Student Test Score Gains: Evidence from a Large Urban School District, 2009, Matthew Pepper, Matthew Springer, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar Paper | Presentation Consortium on Chicago School Research, 2009 When Schools Close: Effects on Displaced Students in Chicago Public Schools Mathis, William, (2009), NCLBs Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do they Improve the Quality of Education? http://epicpolicy.org/files/MathisSANCTIONS.pdf BOUNDARY CROSSING FOR DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND ACHIEVEMENT: INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY November 2009 www.tc.edu/news/7232. Obama Administration Proposed Changes in NCLB/ESEA re accountability: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publication_pg4.html#part4 Bibliography: NCLB and Charter Schools Are public charter schools better or worse than standard public schools with regards to student achievement and/or general quality of education? Are charters a good way to achieve useful innovations in education? Should NCLB provide greater support (or less or the same) for charter schools? US Department of Education Resources Legislation: Grant information (NCLB Title V, Part B): http://www.ed.gov/programs/charter/index.html A Commitment to Quality National Charter School Policy Forum Report (2008) www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/csforum/report.html. The introduction to the actual report (open the PDF document) has very recent basic data about the number of charter schools, etc. Reports with success stories: K8 Charter Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/index.html, and Charter High Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap, www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterhs/index.html Obama Administration Proposal (Blueprint) for reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA, look at Public school choice PDF (2.04M) and Fostering Innovation and Excellence PDF (840K) Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, Supporting Effective Charter Schools, Promoting Public School Choice Definition, Description, Data The Wikipedia entry is fairly good, with lots of references, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school US Charter Schools (advocacy group) http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/index.htm The Center for Education Reform Charter Connection, link to Annual Survey of Americas Charter Schools 2010 http://www.edreform.com/Issues/Charter_Connection/

17

Center for Public Education Charter School section, lots of info, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5868097&ct=8089273&notoc=1

Research on Charter Schools Institute of Education Sciences, 2010, The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104029.pdf "Charter Schools in Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration, and Competition" (March 2009) PDF Format (944K). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, March 2009, Ron Zimmer, et. al. (Read the summary) "Going Beyond Test Scores: Evaluating Charter School Impact on Educational Attainment in Chicago and Florida" (August 2008) Kevin Booker, Brian Gill, Ron Zimmer, and Tim R. Sass, "Achievement and Attainment in Chicago Charter Schools" (May 2008) Executive Summary Kevin Booker, Brian Gill, Ron Zimmer, and Tim R. Sass "Evaluating the Performance of Philadelphia's Charter Schools" (March 2008) Ron Zimmer, Suzanne Blanc, Brian Gill, and Jolley Christman CREDO, Stanford University, 2009, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States. The full report is here, use the executive summary: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf CREDO, Stanford University. 2010, Charter School Performance in New York City. http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/NYC%202009%20_CREDO.pdf Policy Matters Ohio, Ready to Learn: Ohio assessment shows charters, magnets get head start, 2009, www.policymattersohio.org/KRA-L2009.htm Hoxby, C., 2009, How New York Citys Charter Schools Affect Achievement,
www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval

National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010, Who Benefits From KIPP? (indepth study of one KIPP charter school) http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/5311

Future, NCLB, Change, Improve Education Sector, Fair Trade: Five Deals to Expand and Improve Charter Schooling, Growing Pains: Scaling Up the Nation's Best Charter Schools, In Need of Improvement: Revising NCLB's School Choice Provision, and many other publications re charter schools, www.educationsector.org, open educational choice and charter schools in the browse by topic menu. Civil Rights Project, Choice Without Equity: Charter School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards, 2010, www.schoolinfosystem.org/pdf/2010/02/CRP-Choices-Without-Equity-report.pdf National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2007, Creating the Schools Our Nation Needs: NCLB Reauthorization and the Promise of Public Charter Schools, http://www.publiccharters.org/files/publications/file_NAPCS_NCLB_Statem ent_Singles_for_Web_1_

18

Bibliography: Impact of NCLB (Testing/ Accountability) on Curriculum and/or Instruction For this topic you can address only the impact on curriculum or only the impact on instruction or both. There is much more concrete data re curriculum and you need to be careful not to use hearsay information for either topic. You need a brief description of testing, AYP and sanctions mandatesthis is what may put pressure on a school or teacher to modify curriculum and/or instruction Federal guidelines for Testing, AYP, Sanctions (Include at beginning of paper) Accountability (testing) requirements: www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html
and AYP info is back on page 11.

Impact on Curriculum (what is taught, this papers have different perspectives on this topic, read carefully, distinguish between elementary and MS/HS impact) CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2008, Getting Narrower at the Base: The American Curriculum After NCLB. http://www.civicyouth.org/?p=325, www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/Narrowing_Curriculum.pdf CEP reports www.cep-dc.org, Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era (2007), http://www.cepdc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/07107%20Curriculum-WEB%20FINAL %207%2031%2007.pdf and Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects (2008), http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=234&documentFormatId=4589 Earlier data re the impact of NCLB on subject matter/content is found in this report: Academic Atrophy: The Condition of the Liberal Arts in Americas Schools (Executive Summary), www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=5058 Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings (2009). Includes survey data re instructional time spent on subjects. Its the first study listed here:

19

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html, the Highlights document has a nice concise summary of results. The Urban Institute and RAND, 2008, Performance-based Accountability Policies: Implications for School and Classroom Practices,
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411779_accountability_policies.pdf

Yeh, Stuart, 2005, Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing, http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/148/274 Has NCLB Set Back Science and Social Studies? Dale Ballou, Jeffrey Springer Presentation (2009 Conference presentation, unfortunately no paper yet)

Other Zamosky, Lisa, Social Studies: Is It History?, District Administration, v44 n3 p46-48, 50 Mar 2008 www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1491 Spohn, Cydney, Teacher Perspectives on No Child Left Behind and Arts Education: A Case Study, Arts Education Policy Review, v109 n4 p3-11 Mar-Apr 2008 Impact on Instuction (how things are taught) Center for Public Education. A good research review re the impact of testing on instruction is found here: High-stakes testing and effects on instruction: Research review Read carefully, however, there is a list of four negative classroom effects produced by testing followed by the assertion that there is little research to support these effects. CEP report: Summary: Lessons from the Classroom Level about Federal and State Accountability in Rhode Island and Illinois (2008), examines the impact of national and state accountability systems on curriculum, instruction, and student achievement in a very small number of schools www.cep-dc.org Recent study by Larry Cuban http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/49/175 Read at least pages 19-22, you cant just use the abstract for this one. Shows NO observed changes in instructional methods since implementation of NCLB McCarthey, Sarah J., The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Teachers' Writing Instruction, Written Communication, v25 n4 p462-505 2008 See the Yeh study above Recommendations for Changes in Testing (or NCLB) to Change Impact on C&I See the CEP report above: Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era and Better Federal Policies Leading to Better Schools (2010), (some recommendations re assessment address C&I issues) http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=301&documentFormatId=4592 And also above: Academic Atrophy: The Condition of the Liberal Arts in Americas Schools (Executive Summary), www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=5058 (conclusions include recommendations for change) Obama administration proposal (Blueprint) for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA; look at A complete education PDF (2.10M), and A Complete Education PDF (1.17M) Literacy, STEM, A Well-Rounded Education, College Pathways and Accelerated Learning

20

Changes Specific to Physical Education and Environmental Education The proposed FIT Kids Act and No Child Left Inside Act (http://edlabor.house.gov/nochild-left-inside-act/index.shtml and http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=687 ) are examples of proposed legislation intended to make sure that the curriculum does not exclude outdoor activities and physical activities. None of this legislation has passed Congress yet; may end up included in reauthorized ESEA somehow.

Bibliography: Early Childhood Education Note: The primary involvement of the federal government in early childhood education is through the Head Start program administered by DHHS. This is not part of NCLB, but you want to briefly describe it in the paper. However, Title 1 of NCLB has some involvement in early childhood and some parts of the IDEA legislation also relate to early childhood. The current issue is Should NCLB give more attention to promoting and funding early childhood education (for disadvantaged children)? U.S. Department of Education Overview of Early Childhood Programs www.ed.gov/parents/earlychild/ready/resources.html; section 2 has a link to Early Reading First (last funded in 2009) and a list of all federal programs re early childhood and Info re teacher quality grants re early childhood:
www.ed.gov/programs/eceducator/

Proposed legislation: Obama Administration Blueprint; look at Early learning PDF (1.17M) Basic Data Source re Federal EC ProgramsPage 3 in this publication: New America Foundation Early Education Initiative www.newamerica.net/files/IBPK3NCLBSuccess.pdf Issue Brief #5 May 21, 2007, THE KEY TO NCLB SUCCESS: GETTING IT RIGHT FROM THE START. A very good resource, provides concise understandable overview of current federal/state involvement in early childhood education and specific recommendations for addressing this in the NCLB reauthorization. Advocates for Greater Federal Involvement in PreK Education PreKNow (Pew Center on the States), The Case for PreK in the ESEA, http://www.preknow.org/resource/ESEA.cfm, with links to many resources. New America Foundation Early Education Initiative, 2010, A Next Social Contract for the Primary Years of Education, http://earlyed.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/NextSoci alContractEducation.pdf (and (http://earlyed.newamerica.net/home)

21

Research Re the Impact of Early Childhood Education Harvard University Center on the Developing Child: Science and Policy. http://developingchild.harvard.edu/topics/science_and_policy/ The reports, working papers and briefs are excellent research reviews that support the importance of intervention during early childhood. Dearing, McCartney and Taylor, Does Higher-Quality Early Childhood Care Promote Low-Income Childrens Math and Reading Achievement in Middle Childhood? Child Development Sept/Oct. 2009. A synopsis can be found here: www.newamerica.net/blog/early-ed-watch/2009/better-child-care-could-help-mathand-reading-scores-through-elementary-school-1 with a link to the full study. USDHHS, (2010) Head Start Federal Impact Study http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_stud y/executive_summary_final.pdf Note: this study has been criticized re several aspects of the methods and subjects. Bibliography Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) Mandate and Title II HQT Funding NCLB includes a mandate that All teachers in schools receiving federal funding will be deemed highly qualified by 2006. The mandate defines highly qualified very specifically. NCLB also provides formula funds and grants to states for the purpose of improving and sustaining teacher quality. Issues and Sources (Select one or two issues, you cant cover all of these) ISSUES re the HQT Mandate How effective has NCLB been in achieving the mandate of having all teachers highly qualified? Is the NCLB definition (requirements for considering a teacher HQT) adequate or should there be fewer or more requirements? What does the research tell us about the characteristics of effective teachers? Should there be an additional requirement for some measure(s) of teaching effectiveness? ( If you want to focus solely on this, see page 24) Should NCLB promote alternative certification programs (fewer requirements)? Federal mandates for HQT: You MUST identify the three basic requirements AND the exceptions (flexibility) to these provided via HOUSSE, as well as some flexible guidelines for rural teachers, math and science, etc. See www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html and www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg10.html. READ both of these; the three basic requirements are in both; highlighted in blue in the second one. If you address alternative teacher preparation programs, the federal support (small amount of funding) for this is addressed in Title IIC Chapter B, info here: http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/nclb-law/CHAPTER-B.TRANSITION-TO-TEACHING-PROGRAM NCLB Impact: Info re the # and types of teachers meeting (or not) NCLB HQT guidelines:

22

 Department of Education: State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume VIII--Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Final Report: Report Highlights: Center for Education Policy, 2007, Implementing the No Child Left Behind Teacher Requirements, http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=222&documentFormatId=4087 Defining/Research on various aspects of teacher quality: Center for Public Education, 2009, Does Highly Qualified Mean Highly Effective?, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5701285&ct=7780837&notoc=1 Pianta, 2007, Opportunities to Learn in Americas Elementary Classrooms, www.nasbe.org/projects/early_childhood/may_mailing/Pianta in Science magazine.pdf, research with focus on observations of teacher instructional practices The Center for Public Education, 2005, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Research Review, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5114831&ct=6857791&notoc=1 Relationship between MS in education and student achievement, Separation of Degrees: State-by-State Analysis of Teacher Compensation for Masters Degrees,2009, study Large recent study examining independent effect of teacher quality on student learning, Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability (Rand Corporation, 2004)
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG158.pdf

Educational Testing Service, 2007, Teacher Quality in a Changing Policy Landscape: Improvements in the Teacher Pool > (PDF) National Council on Teachers Quality, 2008 State Teacher Quality Yearbook, (Current evaluation of teaching effectiveness (or lack of it) in various states) www.nctq.org/stpy08/primaryFindings.jsp Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs (Teach for America and others) Heilig and Jez, 2010, Teach for America: A Review of the Evidence, http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america Mathematica Policy Research for the Department of Education, "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification." Jill Constantine, Daniel Player, Tim Silva, Kristin Hallgren, Mary Grider, and John Deke, February 2009. A large study of multiple types of alternative routes to teacher certification. The Broad Foundation, 2008, A Study on the Impact of Teach For America Teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District, http://broadeducation.org/asset/1128-tfalausdstudy.pdf Public Agenda, 2007, Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About their Jobs, Challenges, and Long-Range Plans, Issue 2: Working Without a Net: How Teachers from Three Prominent Alternate Route Programs Describe Their First Year on The Job

23

ISSUES re the Title II Formula Funds and Grants Are Title II (formula) funds spent on effective teacher training (professional development) or not? Its a fair amount of money, should the legislation be changed to improve use and/or accountability of these funds? Basic Title IIA info is here: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/index.html. A small amount of additional funding for professional development and teacher training is provided in Title IIC, but its very negligible compared to IIA and only provided via grants for very specific purposestroops to teachers and alternative certification programs. A recent impact report on Title II funding and teacher quality: Rotherham, A., 2008,Title 2.0: Revamping the Federal Role in Education Human Capitol, not very long and an excellent resource, www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Title_2.pdf A Blueprint for Reform (Reauthorization of ESEA): Great Teachers and Great Leaders, 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html Open Great Teachers and Leaders, and READ the section starting on page 3, Effective Teachers and Leaders. The blue box at the beginning has the proposals for what the current administration would like to see retained or changed when NCLB is reauthorized (re professional development funded via Title II). The remainder is a research review that justifies these proposals. The citations list at the end of this section provides further sources for this topic. ISSUES re Title VD (Teacher Incentive Fund) and Performance-Based Pay (Merit Pay) The idea of performance-based pay is very controversial, especially if based wholly or partially on student test scores. Some writers assume that merit or performance-based pay is always based solely on student test scores. This is NOT necessarily true, and it is NOT true for the Teacher Incentive Fund support. Department of Education Information Center for Public Education, Promise or Peril? Teacher Pay for Performance, a great short overview of the topic, pros and cons, etc. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5285295&ct=7182411&notoc=1 The basic information re the Teacher Incentive Fund is here www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html and also open the laws/regs section and the funding status section. The increase in funding (partly via ARRA) reflects the support of the current administration for establishing performance-based (merit) pay programs. READ the legislation (its very short) and note that the intent is NOT to support programs based solely on student test scores (student academic achievement). Center for American Progress, 2009, The Teacher Incentive Fund: A Wise Investment in Human Capital Reform, Teacher Support for Compensation Reform, Why We Need the Teacher Incentive Fund (three different articles) Chicago Public Schools New Teacher Evaluation System, Excellence in Teaching Project, Study of the first year of Chicagos pilot evaluation system (one example of a teacher evaluation system) 24

 MacInnes, Gordon, 2009, EIGHT REASONS NOT TO TIE TEACHER PAY TO STANDARDIZED TEST RESULTS, The Century Foundation Issue Brief, www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PR&pubid=168 TAP Program Teacher Quality Resources, includes research on the TAP teacher evaluation system and a policy paper with recommendations for how to set up a good evaluation system, http://www.tapsystem.org/policyresearch/policyresearch.taf? page=resources&pcat=2 Recommendations for Changes/Improvements in NCLB re HQT Center for Education Policy, 2007, Implementing the No Child Left Behind Teacher Requirements, http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=222&documentFormatId=4087 Education Sector Reports, 2008, Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf Illinois Education Research Council, Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois, http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/IERC2008-1.pdf Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/no-child-left-behind, see policy document: Teachers and Principals: Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities (PDF) Fifty Years of Federal Teacher Policy: An Appraisal, 2009, By Gary Sykes and Kenne Dibner, Michigan State University, see recommendations for federal teacher policy, http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Fifty %20Years%20of%20Federal%20Teacher%20Policy.pdf A Blueprint for Reform (Reauthorization of ESEA): Great Teachers and Great Leaders, 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html and Supporting teachers PDF (851K).

25

Bibliography: Instruction and Assessment of LEP (ELL) Students ELL/LEP (English Language Learners/Limited English Proficiency) students are affected by both Title 1 and Title 3 in NCLB, so be sure to include both. I would strongly suggest starting with the second reference belowit has info on both of these in a clear concise formatoften not true of government pubs! Issues are related to the quality and appropriateness of education and assessment (NCLB guidelines) of ELL students. NCLB Title 1 and III Guidelines for assessing ELLS Department of Education website: www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg11.html and also page 20 and www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/factsheet-english.html. Center for Public Education: English Language Learners section,What NCLB says about English Language Learners. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx? c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5117371&ct=6857775&notoc=1. Also a lot of other info re ELL, use the list at the right side of the page to open other articles. ELLs are also addressed in Title III (including extra funding); so include Title III information. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg30.html NCLB Impact to date on ELL students NAEP scores for ELL: open the home page for NAEP: http://nationsreportcard.gov , on the left side open either reading or mathematics, then open Grade 4 or Grade 8 National Results; then in the green bar above the chart click on English Language Learners. Center on Education Policy, 2010, State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08, Part 6: Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners? http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=305&documentFormatId=4640 Resource from Education Week, Quality Counts 2009: Portrait of a Population: How English Language Learners are Putting Schools to the Test http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2009/01/08/index.html (a lot of info but not directly accessible online, need to get through UI Library) Major information source: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs http://www.ncela.gwu.edu Research Teaching to the Test: How No Child Left Behind Impacts Language Policy, Curriculum, and Instruction for English Language Learners, Kate Menken 26

Bilingual Research Journal, 30: 2 Summer 2006 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Linguistics/people/menken/docs/BRJ30.pdf Putting English Language Learners on the Educational Map: The No Child Left Behind Act Implemented. Education in Focus: Urban Institute Policy Brief, 2007, Abstract has link to full report, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp? eric_displayNtriever=false&searchtype=basic&pageSize=10&accno=ED498664&ERICExt Search_SearchValue_0=NCLB+Curriculum&eric_displayStartCount=11&_pageLabel=Re cordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw The National Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners, www.cal.org/create/, 2009 Conference papers, open events Goldenberg, Claude, 2008, Teaching English Language Learners: What the Research Doesand Does NotSay, American Educator Summer 2008, http://www.edweek.org/media/ell_final.pdf Bailey and Kelly, 2010, The Use and Validity of Home Language Surveys in State English Language Proficiency Assessment Systems: A Review and Issues Perspective, http://www.eveaproject.com/doc/HLS%20White%20Paper %202010.pdf Council of the Great City Schools, 2009, Succeeding with English Language Learners a report Suggestions for Changes in NCLB re ELL Center for Education Policy, 2007, English Language Learners' Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (recommendations for reauthorization) http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=202&documentFormatId=3914 National Council of La Raza, 2009, Strengthening Accountability to Ensure Latino Success: An Analysis of NCLB Title I Regulations, has very specific recommendations for changes re ELL/LEP, as well as some good basic data re existing legislataion. http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/59904 Public Comment on Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2010, from the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Reauthorization Recommendations. From the Alliance for Multilingual Multicultural Education. Improving Educational Outcomes for English Language Learners: Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (May 25, 2010). From the Working Group on ELL Policy Letter on the proposed reauthorization of ESEA. (2010)From the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans to the House Committee on Education and Labor. Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2010) From the Hispanic Education Coalition.

27

Obama Administration Proposals (Blueprint) for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA, 2010. Look at Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners PDF (662K) English Learners, Diverse Learners

Bibliography: Reading First Reading First (and Early Reading First) was a relatively small grant program within Title 1. Most of the formula funds in Title 1 are also used for reading/literacy programs so the whole thing was a bit confusing. Basically, Reading First was extra money provided via competitive grants for implementing very specific types of literacy programs (needed to follow specific guidelines). There was a lot of controversy related to the Reading First program primarily because it reflected a broader ongoing controversy in literacy education: the phonics vs whole language (vs. balanced literacy) reading wars. Striving Readers was an even smaller literacy program for middle and high school students. The three programs have not been funded for 1-3 years. This topic is of interest primarily because the Obama administration has proposed a new competitive literacy grant program, larger and broader based (K-12) and with a more balanced methodological approach (avoiding the reading wars issue). See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/complete-education.pdf. This proposal is very similar to and probably based on proposed (separate from NCLB) legislation called the LEARN Act. (Theres no real intention that the LEARN Act become law on its own; there are many proposed education acts that are actually really intended to influence what ends up in NCLB/ESEA if and when it is reauthorized.) Specifics of the LEARN Act: http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Action/LEARNonepagerNCTE.pdf Legislation/NCLB Guidelines Provisions of the Reading First program are found in several places on government websites, most basic info is here: www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst but no funding since 2008 Impact Information Definitely want to include the Read First Impact Study Final Report http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094038/index.asp This report was more or less the death knoll for Reading First. However, a somewhat different perspective on Reading First is provided in a CEP survey study Reading First: Locally Appreciated, Nationally Troubled http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=228&documentFormatId=3892 Critiques of the Education Department Impact Study There are critiques of the Impact Study and it would be good to include at least one of these. The critiques point out what they see as flaws in the study or problems in interpreting the

28

data. For example, this response is from the RF federal advisory committeepeople who are very familiar with RF and also have a stake in it: http://ednews.org/articles/28504/1/RESPONSETO-THE-READING-FIRST-IMPACT-STUDY/Page1.html

There are also critiques of the Reading First program (and agreement with the results of the study) by people who never liked it to begin with because of the strong emphasis on phonics and little emphasis on reading for pleasure. See The Failure of Reading First, www.sdkrashen.com/articles/failure_reading_first/all.html and The Reading Wars http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Reading_Wars.html Another critique, Interview with Reid Lyon: Reading First is the largest concerted reading intervention program in the history of the civilized world: http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largestconcerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html Research on Reading Comprehension Programs Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students ,Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. , 2009 One of the critiques of Reading First is the use of programs that emphasize phonicsthis study looks at the effectiveness of supplemental programs that emphasize comprehension which appear in this study to be no more effective than the phonics programs. Other Reading/Funding Issues Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2009, TIME TO ACT: AN AGENDA FOR ADVANCING ADOLESCENT LITERACY FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER SUCCESS, a new report on literacy of older students, including recommendations for NCLB and other federal policy, http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Main.pdf

29

Bibliography: NCLB and Rural Schools Rural schools must meet the same accountability mandates as other schools, but these mandatesspecifically testing and teacher quality mandates?pose problems for some rural schools, especially smaller rural schools in isolated areas or rural schools with a large population of low-income students (high-poverty rural schools). Legislation All the general aspects of NCLB apply to rural schools so if you write about rural schools having difficulties with AYP, for example, then you need to briefly describe the assessment and AYP guidelines (http://www2.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html and AYP on page
11) You can also cite my lecture/powerpoint

If you address rural difficulties related to the teacher quality mandate, briefly describe the basic guidelines for teacher quality (3 credential requirements) and the guidelines specifically related to rural teachers, info found here: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html Read the entire page, basic requirements at the end. Rural education is addressed specifically in NCLB in Title 6B, including some special grants like (REAP)-- theRural Education Achievement Program http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html

Definitions, Demographics, Other Data, Issues Include basic data: How is rural school defined? How many rural schools are there or how many students attend them? Where do they tend to be located? How many do/dont make AYP? All the basic data is in this report, Status of Education in Rural America www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/ruraled Open demographics, outcomes, etc. MCREL section re rural schools (http://www.mcrel.org/topics/RuralEducation) Many of the papers here relate to various aspects of NCLB, including Guiding Rural Schools and Districts: A Research Agenda. The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010, Current Challenges and Opportunities in Preparing Rural High School Students for Success in College and Careers. Most of this relates to K-12 (not just high school). Read the whole thing, its the best source re problems faced by rural schools. Surveys, Research GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts, 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04909.pdf

30

 Farmer, T. W., et. al. (2006). Adequate yearly progress in small rural schools and rural low-income schools. The Rural Educator, Summer 2006, 1-7. www.ruraleducator.net/archive/273TOC.htm

Center on Education Policy, 2008, Some Perspectives from Rural School Districts on The No Child Left Behind Act, http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=240&documentFormatId=3884 Note the positives re NCLB as well as problems. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, A Statewide Investigation into meeting the mandates of No Child Left Behind, 2008, Includes separate information for rural schools, www.ruralpa.org/NCLB.pdf Responding to Multicultural Challenges in Rural Special Education, Multicultural Learning and Teaching (2006), 1(1), 31-44 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/11276349.aspx

Changes In NCLB to better meet the needs of rural schools Letter to Arne Duncan from legislators from rural states, 2010, http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_022610_duncan.pdf The MCREL paper suggests more research is needed to truly know how to meet the needs of rural schools, so one solution would be research money for this in NCLB. (Also see Rural School and Community Trust: (2009) The Case for An Office of Rural Education Policy Research in the U.S. Department of Education (funded via NCLB?) This group has some specific recommendations: NREAC Legislative Agenda 2008 Goals although its a bit difficult to pick them out. They and others have suggested changes in the formula funding for Title 1the formula now favors schools with more students. This is probably the major change recommended re NCLB to benefit rural schoolsbasically more money. But most funding for rural schools comes from local and states funds, just as for all schools, so the federal role in providing funding is still very limited. Another solution is more money in NCLB for technology grants, especially for setting up virtual schools to serve rural areas. See Distance Education Use in Rural Schools, Journal of Research in Rural Education, 2009, 24(3) www.psu.edu/dept/jrre/articles/24-3.pdf The Obama administrations proposals (Blueprint) for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA address rural education in this section on page 11-12: Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners PDF (662K), English Learners, Diverse Learners

31

Bibliography School Safety: NCLB Section 8532 Unsafe School Choice Option Title IVA: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (Grants for Programs) Gun-Free Schools Act (also part of NCLB) NCLB addresses school safety in several waysthere is a school safety mandate that requires schools to provide an alternative school choice if a school is deemed unsafe. There is also an act related to dealing with students who bring guns to school. And there is grant money for prevention programs. ISSUES: Has this legislation had any impact at all? Are the funded programs effective? A government study says probably not Department of Education Safe Schools Mandate (first paragraph in introduction), http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.doc Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities Act, State Grants, Non-Regulatory Draft Guidance for State and Local Implementation of Programs. (January 2004) MS WORD , Read the introduction for an overview of this part of the legislation U.S. Department of Education (2007a). Enhancing Achievement and Proficiency Through Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/sdfscac/enhancing-achievement.doc U.S. Department of Education (2007b). An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/s03g0015.pdf Obama Administration Proposal (Blueprint) for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA, safe schools info is in this part, page 13, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/successful-safe-healthy.pdf Research and Data: Unsafe School Choice Option Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education 5:1, School Safety under NCLBs Unsafe School Choice Option, http://www.urbanedjournal.org/archive/Vol. %205%20Iss.%202%20Order%20in%20Schools/Articles/Article_1_Safety %20and%20NCLB.html Good background info and data and the research in this paper examines how different states define and assess safety. Data re youth violence, drug use, prevention programs, etc.

32

NCES, IES, BJS, Indicators of School Crime and Safety http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/ and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2009/ Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), updated 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm National Survey of Childrens Exposure to Violence, 2009, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Three reports from the study on school violence and prevention executive summary, 2001. Older data but seems to be the most recent government evaluation effectiveness of prevention measures
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/studies-school-violence/3-exec-sum.pdf (see conclusions)

Research re Effectiveness of Title VIA grants and Recommendations for Reauthorization Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Save Our Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program Toolkit, several things here advocating keeping the legislation and reasons for doing it, including some data/research re drug/alcohol use and achievement. http://www.cadca.org/policyadvocacy/priorities/safe-and-drugfree-schools-and-communities-program/Toolkit. Of special interest: The Forgotten Link: Drug and Alcohol Use and Academic Achievement and A Framework and Rationale for Explicitly Including Substance Use/Abuse Prevention and Intervention in the Reauthorization of ESEA CRS, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues, 2008, government report re the legislation http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34496_20080519.pdf (This may not work, if so, just search for the title above) Safe At School: An Interview with Kevin Jennings, PDK, February 2010 Educational Researcher 39:1, J/F 2010
Special Issue: New Perspectives on School Safety and Violence Prevention

Why Do School Order and Safety Matter? Dewey G. Cornell and Matthew J.
Mayer http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/7.full.pdf+html? ijkey=9ERnakttVF9AU&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr

How Safe Are Our Schools?, Matthew J. Mayer and Michael J.

Furlong http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/16.full.pdf? ijkey=F/p8q91djyvu6&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr

What Can Be Done About School Shootings? A Review of the Evidence

Randy Borum, Dewey G. Cornell, William Modzeleski, and Shane R. Jimerson

What Can Be Done About School Bullying? Linking Research to Educational Practice

Susan M. Swearer, Dorothy L. Espelage, Tracy Vaillancourt, and Shelley Hymel http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher /3901/038-047_02EDR10.pdf

33

How Can We Improve School Discipline?

David Osher, George G. Bear, Jeffrey R. Sprague, and Walter Doyle

The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
Anne Gregory, Russell J. Skiba, and Pedro A. Noguera

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/59.full.pdf? ijkey=MMYrMaUAJDnLQ&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr How Can We Improve School Safety Research? Ron Avi Astor, Nancy Guerra, and Richard Van Acker Bibliography: Assessment of Students With Disabilities There are two sets of legislation that apply to SWD students: IDEIA (defines eligibility and funds special services) and NCLB (assessment requirements to meet accountability mandates). Both are up for reauthorization this fall. The issues here are related to whether or not IDEA and NCLB are contradictory and whether or not the assessment guidelines for SWD are fair and appropriate NCLB Guidelines for Assessment of SWD Measuring the Achievement of Students with Disabilities, Read the entire page here, theres a paragraph in the middle with a list of ALL the possibilities for testing SWD http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/twopercent.html Center on Education Policy, Students with Disabilities' Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act: Summary of a Roundtable Discussion and Guiding Principles for Reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB For a more understandable explanation of the guidelines, see the Accountability for Students with Disabilities section. http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=206&documentFormatId =3913 IDEA Legislation and NCLB General information re IDEA http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home Alignment with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act http://www.ideapartnership.org/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=1344&oseppage=1 Impact of NCLB on Achievement of SWD, Data, Other Research NAEP (national) scores for SWD: open the home page for NAEP: http://nationsreportcard.gov , then on the left side open either reading or mathematics, then open Grade 4 or Grade 8 National Results; then click on student disability status in the green bar. Center on Education Policy, 2009-2010, State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08: Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for Students with Disabilities? http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=298&documentFormatId=4624

34

 National Council on Disability, 2008, The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report (scroll down page to contents, open executive summary or part I, lots of data here) www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2008/NoChildLeftBehind_IDEA_Progress_Report.ht ml National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2009, Rewards and Roadblocks: How Special Education Students are Faring under No Child Left Behind, also lots of data www.ncld.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=524&pop=1&page=0 Children with Disabilities and LEP Students: Their Impact on the AYP Determinations of Schools (May 5, 2006), Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind. The examples here show how different the impact is in different states. The impact in Illinois is relatively large. National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2010, A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test Accommodations (for students with disabilities): 2007-2008, http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech56/TechnicalReport56.pd f Recommendations for changing NCLB re SWD National Council on Disability report (above), recommendations section (Part IV) (scroll way down the page)
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2008/NoChildLeftBehind_IDEA_Progress_Report.html

Center on Education Policy, 2007, Students with Disabilities' Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act: Summary of a Roundtable Discussion and Guiding Principles for Reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB, http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm? fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=206&documentFormatId =3911 The National Center for Learning Disabilities: Recommendations in Rewards and Roadblocks (at the end of the publication) www.ncld.org/index2.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=524&pop=1&page=0

The Obama Administrations Proposal (Blueprint) for reauthorizing NCLB/ESEA, info re SWD in this part: Diverse learners PDF (1.99M) (Theres just one paragraph here; cant find anything re SWD in other parts)

35

Professional Teaching Standard #11 NCLB Paper is an Artifact for This Standard for the Assessment Portfolio For this assignment you will write a paper that can serve as an artifact for the Illinois Professional Teaching Standard given below. You must determine which specific indicators for the standard are applicable to your artifact. Then follow the general instructions on the next page for writing the reflective statement. STANDARD 11 - Professional Conduct and Leadership The competent teacher understands education as a profession, maintains standards of professional conduct, and provides leadership to improve students learning and well-being. Knowledge Indicators - The competent teacher: 11A. understands the unique characteristics of education as a profession. 11B. understands how school systems are organized and operate. 11C. understands school policies and procedures. 11D. understands legal issues in education. 11E. understands the importance of active participation and leadership in professional organizations. 11F. is familiar with the rights of students with disabilities. 11G. knows the roles and responsibilities of teachers, parents, students, and other professionals related to special education. 11H. knows identification and referral procedures for students with disabilities. Performance Indicators - The competent teacher: 11I. contributes knowledge and expertise about teaching and learning to the profession. 11J. follows codes of professional conduct and exhibits knowledge and expectations of current legal directives. 11K. follows school policy and procedures, respecting the boundaries of professional responsibilities, when working with students, colleagues, and families. 11L. initiates and develops educational projects and programs. 11M. actively participates in or leads in such activities as curriculum development, staff development, and student organizations. 11N. participates, as appropriate, in policy design and development at the local level, with professional organizations, and/or with community organizations.

36

11O. demonstrates commitment to developing the highest educational and quality-of-life potential of individuals with disabilities. 11P. demonstrates positive regard for individual students and their families regardless of culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. 11Q. promotes and maintains a high level of integrity in the practice of the profession. 11R. complies with local, State, and federal monitoring and evaluation requirements related to students with disabilities. 11S. complies with local, State, and federal regulations and policies related to students with disabilities. 11T. uses a variety of instructional and intervention strategies prior to initiating a referral of a student for special education. Reflective Statements for Part II of Certification Portfolio General guidelines from OCE: Double space with triple space between title and each heading Two page minimum, three page maximum Correct grammar and punctuation Composed of paragraph responses addressing all 4 of the following: Fully state the standard in bold text. Do NOT include the knowledge and performance indicators here, but do USE (refer to) these parts of the standard when writing the reflective statement. 1. Write a paragraph explaining your knowledge and understanding of that standardput the standard into your own words. 2. Explain how the artifact you chose demonstrates your understanding and application of the standard. Refer to the specific parts of the standard (knowledge indicators and performance indicators) that relate to your artifact. (See example below; the parts in quotes are direct quotes from the indicators and its perfectly acceptable to quote like this and it makes it easier to write the reflective statements.) 3. A If the artifact has been used in your practice, reflect on how your teaching will change in the future to further meet the standard. B. If the artifact has not been used in your practice, i.e., a class assignment, reflect upon how your teaching will be impacted by the assignment. (what youve learned that you will use in teaching) 4. Conclude with a paragraph discussing how you are more prepared to Teach and Learn in a Diverse Society as a result of satisfactorily meeting the standard. Example Below: Format your reflective statement EXACTLY like the example; DO include the italicized headings (instructions) for each section.

37

Artifact: Paper on Adolescent Development

PTS 2. Human Development and Learning: The teacher understands how

individuals grow, develop and learn and provides learning opportunities that support the intellectual, social, and personal development of all students.

1. Write a paragraph explaining your knowledge and understanding of the standardput the standard into your own words.
I think this standard wants me to recognize that people are different and my students will all be different in some ways, and that I need to take this into consideration when I plan for teaching. If I have students all doing the same kinds of learning activities at the same level all of the time, then I probably wont meet the needs of all the students or even very many of them. If I understand what kinds of differences there are between the students, then I can plan instructional activities that are varied in order to help adjust to those differences.

2. Explain how the artifact you chose demonstrates your understanding and application of the standard.
The artifact I chose for this standard is an essay that is a summation of the most important concepts I learned in my Early Adolescent Development class and an exploration of how I hope to apply that knowledge in my practice as a teacher. In the essay, I explore how gender development, mental health, and cognitive development can affect student learning and ways in which I, as a teacher, can take into account my students' individual differences in each of these areas, that is, how to include student development factors when making instructional decisions. Through the class, I was also

38

able to explore many other developmental factors (in social, cognitive and physical domains) that affect learning, and this essay is just a snapshot of my reflections about these issues. With regard to intellectual development, I believe that I now better understand how students construct knowledge, acquire skills and develop habits of mind.

3. A If the artifact has been used in your practice, reflect on how your teaching will change in the future to further meet the standard. B. If the artifact has not been used in your practice, i.e., a class assignment, reflect upon how your teaching will be impacted by the assignment.
Through my Early Adolescent Development class, I was exposed to a variety of developmental issues that teens may face and was able to reflect with other pre-service teachers on how these issues might affect student learning and how we as teachers will be able to aid our students' learning and development. Although I was once a teenager, I cannot assume that my students are experiencing the same pressures and emotions that I faced during adolescence. My students will all be at different stages of development, and they will carry differing values and perspectives on life with them into my classroom. I realize now that I must take this into account in order to plan activities in my classroom that will be meaningful and beneficial to students.

4. Conclude with a paragraph discussing how you are more prepared to Teach and Learn in a Diverse Society as a result of satisfactorily meeting the standard.
Understanding adolescent development and differences will better prepare me to deal with these aspects of diversity as a teacher because I will know what to expect and I will start with some ideas about how to how to address these differences in my instructional

39

practices. I anticipate that my future classroom experiences will modify and build on these understandings as well.

40