Author: Kerstin Carlson Le Floch

Publisher:

Published: 2007

Total Pages: 212

ISBN-13:

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.].