This report presents findings on the implementation of parental choice options from the first year of the National Longitudinal Study of "No Child Left Behind" (NLS-"NCLB") and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under "No Child Left Behind" (SSI-"NCLB"). The report uses data from state-level interviews, from surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals, and teachers, surveys of parents in eight school districts, surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts, and student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts, to examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2004-05. This report addresses three broad areas in evaluating the Title I provisions for providing school choice and supplemental services for students in low-performing schools: (1) Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and supplemental educational services under Title I of "NCLB," what choices are made available, and who participates? (2) How are states, districts and schools providing information to make parents aware of their options? What information do parents have and use to make decisions about their school choice and supplemental service options? and (3) How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and collaborate in the implementation of supplemental educational services under Title I? Two appendixes are included: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; and (2) Standard Error Exhibits. (Contains 77 exhibits.).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all students be assessed academically in mathematics and reading, and for purposes of adequate yearly progress (AYP), participation rates in statewide assessments must be 95 percent for all students. Federal law requires states to have at least one alternate assessment to evaluate the performance of disabilities that are unable to participate in general state assessments even with accommodations. Flexibility for these alternate assessments are provided via a "1 percent rule" that is applied to students with most significant cognitive disabilities and permits up to 1 percent of students in a state or district who score proficient or above on an alternate assessment to be counted as proficient for purposes of AYP calculations. An additional 2 percent of all students may be counted as proficient for purposes of AYP calculations as long as they achieved a proficient or above score on an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards that are aligned with grade-level content standards under "2 percent interim policy options." This report presents findings from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). Key findings include: (1) By 2005-06, all states had alternate assessment systems in place, but federal peer review teams found that 38 states had problems associated with their alternate assessments; (2) A majority of states report test participations rates for students with disabilities that exceeded the 95 percent requirement in 2005-05; (3) Most states with accurate data in 2004-05 and 2005-06 reported that the percentage of students with disabilities who participated in the alternate assessment was less that 10 percent of all students with disabilities who were assessed; (4) Twenty-two states granted exceptions to districts to exceed the 1 percent cap on the inclusions of proficient and above scores from alternate assessments; (5) Twenty-one states used the 2 percent proxy option for AYP calculations in 2005-06, down from 25 states in 2004-05; and (6) From 2003-04 to 2004-05, across the 28 states for which there were adequate data, more than half reduced the number and proportion of schools that missed AYP for the achievement of students with disabilities. (Contains 31 footnotes and 30 exhibits.).
Studies suggest that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001's goal of 100 percent of U.S. students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 will not be met. The authors recommend more-uniform state academic standards and teacher requirements and broader measures of student learning, including more subjects and tests of higher-thinking and problem-solving skills.
Achieving the goals of federal education legislation depends on how federal funds are distributed and used. Since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, various federal programs have been created to support educational improvement and target additional resources to meet the educational needs of children who are economically and educationally disadvantaged. This report presents findings on the targeting and uses of funds for six federal education programs, based on 2004-05 data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB). The programs studied are: Title I, Part A; Reading First; Comprehensive School Reform (CSR); Title II, Part A; Title III, Part A; and Perkins Vocational Education State Grants. This report describes how well federal funds are targeted to high-need districts and schools, how districts have spent federal funds, and the comparability of the base of state and local resources to which federal funds are added. Reported findings include: (1) Federal education funds were more strongly targeted to the highest-poverty districts than were state and local funds but did not close the funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts; (2) The overall share of Title I funds going to the highest-poverty districts changed only marginally between 1997-98 and 2004-05; (3) At the school level, Title I funding per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools remained unchanged from 1997-98 to 2004-05, when adjusted for inflation, and these schools continued to receive smaller Title I allocations per low-income student than did the lowest-poverty schools; (4) Federal program funds were used mainly for instruction; (5) Among the six federal programs, Title I provided the most funds used for professional development; and (6) Overall, school personnel expenditures from Title I amounted to $408 per low-income student, a 9 percent increase over the base of state and local per-student expenditures on school personnel. The report concludes that, while federal funds have been an important source of support to the highest-poverty districts and schools, and the majority of funds from the six federal programs studied have been used for instruction, neither these programs nor all federal programs combined have provided sufficient funding to make up for the greater access to local revenues available in the lowest-poverty districts compared with the highest-poverty districts in the United States. Four appendices are included: (1) Description of NLS-NCLB Methodology; (2) Supplemental Exhibits; (3) Standard Error Tables; and (4) Distribution of Title I Schools in NLS and CCD datasets. (Contains 51 footnotes and 141 exhibits.).
The "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)" is designed to achieve an ambitious goal: All children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year. A key strategy for achieving this goal is accountability. Based on findings from two federally funded studies--the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under "NCLB" (SSI-"NCLB") and the National Longitudinal Study of "NCLB" (NLS-"NCLB")--this report describes the progress that states, districts, and schools have made in implementing the accountability provisions of "NCLB" through 2006-07. Data were collected in state-level interviews; surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals, and teachers; surveys of parents in eight school districts; and surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts in 2004-05 and in 2006-07. This report is based on data collected in 2004-05 and 2006-07, and updates findings from the Interim report that were based on data collected in 2004-05. States used the flexibility provided by "NCLB" to establish accountability systems that varied in terms of the rigor of their academic standards, the level at which they set proficiency, the type of assessments they use, and the manner in which they calculated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and set their annual proficiency targets. As a result of these differences as well as differences in student achievement, there was a large variation across states in the percentage of schools missing AYP and being identified for improvement. Appendices include: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; (2) State Policy Tables; (3) Supplemental Exhibits; and (4) Standard Error Exhibits. (Contains 127 footnotes and 140 exhibits.) [This report was prepared for the Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.].
This report presents trends on the implementation of Title I parental choice options from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). The report uses data from state-level interviews; surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals and teachers; surveys of parents in eight school districts; and surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts to examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2006-07. It is based on data collected in 2004-05 and 2006-07, updating findings from the interim report that was based on data collected in 2004-05. Most districts reported that they offered Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services if they were required to do so, and the number of students participating in both options increased substantially from the initial implementation of NCLB to the most recent year with available data. However, only a small proportion of eligible students actually participated in school choice or supplemental educational services, and participation rates have remained relatively constant. Four notable issues appeared to continue to contribute to low participation rates, in spite of the progress that had been made on some of these issues: (1) Supply of options for both Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services was limited at the secondary level; (2) Approximately half of districts continued to be unable to notify parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice of that option before the beginning of the school year; (3) A majority of parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice and more than one-third of parents of students eligible for supplemental educational services continued to say they were not notified of those options, even though the districts documented that written notifications had been sent out; and (4) Even when parents said they were notified, nine out of 10 parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice and nearly half of parents of students eligible for Title I supplemental educational services chose not to participate, primarily due to satisfaction with the child's current school. The report concludes that, although there continue to be issues around availability of Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services and timely notification of and communication with parents, it is parents of eligible students who ultimately decide whether they want to avail themselves of the options offered to their children. To date, parents have shown a low propensity to do so for both public school choice and supplemental educational services. Three appendices are included: (1) Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies; (2) Standard Error Exhibits; and (3) Supplemental Exhibits. (Contains 34 footnotes and 88 exhibits.).
This report presents findings about accountability from two longitudinal studies, the National Longitudinal Study of "No Child Left Behind" (NLS-"NCLB"), and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under "No Child Left Behind" (SSI-"NCLB"). The research teams for these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the implementation of key "NCLB" provisions at the state level (SSI-"NCLB") and at the district and school levels (NLS-"NCLB"). Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. This is the third volume in this report series. The first two volumes were: Volume I--Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement; and Volume II--Teacher Quality Under "NCLB": Interim Report. This volume details seven key findings: (1) States, districts and schools had mostly met the relevant "NCLB" accountability requirements through 2004-05; (2) All states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had enacted the accountability provisions required by "NCLB," including academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics and other required performance indicators; (3) More than half of states were testing students in all required grades in reading and mathematics in advance of the 2005-06 "NCLB" deadline--However, 20 states were behind schedule in implementing assessments that measure English language proficiency; (4) Seventy-five percent of the nation's schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2003-04--of the 25 percent that did not make AYP, half (51 percent) did not succeed because the school as a whole (i.e., the "all students" group) or multiple student subgroups did not meet achievement standards. When schools did not make AYP for a single subgroup, it was usually for students with disabilities; (5) About one-third of schools that did not make AYP did not do so for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency (LEP) student groups--About two-thirds of those schools reported needing technical assistance to improve instruction for these subgroups; (6) Thirteen percent of the nation's schools were identified for improvement in 2004-05--Those schools were most likely to be high-poverty, high-minority, large, urban schools to which Title I has historically directed substantial resources; and (7) Nearly all schools reported making multiple improvement efforts--Schools identified for improvement focused on more areas of improvement than non-identified schools. Schools also reported receiving technical assistance that met their needs, with exceptions in two areas. About one-half of schools needing assistance to improve services to students with disabilities and to improve services to limited English proficient students, did not have these needs met. States and districts were implementing the required interventions in schools identified for improvement and corrective action, but they were not implementing the required actions in most of the 1,199 schools in restructuring. Overall, states took advantage of the flexibility provided by "NCLB" to establish accountability systems that vary significantly in a number of areas, including the level of student academic achievement required to be proficient, the type of assessments, and the pace of improvement required to reach 100 percent student proficiency by 2013-14. The result was a large variation across states in the percentage of schools missing AYP and being identified for improvement. Appended are: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; (2) State AYP Definitions; (3) Supplemental Exhibits; and (4) Standard Error Exhibits. [This report was produced by the Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.].
This report presents findings about teacher quality from two longitudinal studies, the National Longitudinal Study of "No Child Left Behind" (NLS-"NCLB"), and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under "No Child Left Behind" (SSI-"NCLB"). The research teams for these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the implementation of key "NCLB" provisions at the state level (SSI-"NCLB") and at the district and school levels (NLS-"NCLB"). Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. This is the eighth volume in this report series. Based on findings from the two studies, this report describes the progress that states, districts, and schools have made implementing the teacher and paraprofessional qualification provisions of "NCLB" through 2006-07. Reported findings indicate that: (1) Most teachers met their states' requirements to be considered highly qualified under "NCLB"; (2) The percentage of teachers who were not highly qualified under "NCLB" was higher for special education teachers and middle school teachers, and for teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools; (3) Despite "NCLB" emphasis on sustained, intensive, classroom-focused professional development, a relatively small proportion of teachers reported taking part in content-focused professional development related to teaching reading or mathematics for an extended period of time; and (4) According to state-reported data for 2005-06, 86 percent of Title I instructional paraprofessionals were qualified under "NCLB." The report concludes that, in general, states and districts are working to implement and comply with the "NCLB" requirements for teacher qualifications: States have set guidelines for highly qualified teachers under "NCLB" and have been updating their data systems. According to states, 94 percent of teachers were designated as highly qualified under "NCLB" in 2006-07, and approximately 94 percent of all paraprofessionals reported holding a qualification that would meet the "NCLB" criteria. States and districts are also working to develop strategies designed to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in traditionally disadvantaged schools. Issues recommended for further investigation include: (1) Variations among state policies concerning highly qualified teachers raise questions about whether some states have set high enough standards for teacher qualifications under "NCLB" to ensure that teachers have a solid understanding of the subjects they teach; (2) Variation in teachers' highly qualified status across types of teachers and schools highlights enduring inequities in access to highly qualified teachers; (3) Because many teachers were not aware or notified of their "NCLB" status, they may not have taken necessary steps to become highly qualified; and (4) The low proportion of teachers participating in content-focused professional development over an extended period of time suggests that more can be done to deepen teachers' content knowledge. Four appendixes are included: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; (2) Supplemental NLS-"NCLB" Exhibits and Standard Error Reports; (3) Supplemental State Exhibits; and (4) Definition of professional Development in Section 9101(34) of the "ESEA" ["Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965"]. (Contains 87 footnotes and 139 exhibits.).
