Gao-06-758 No Child Left Behind Act
Gao-06-758 No Child Left Behind Act

Author: United States Government Accountability Office

Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform

Published: 2018-01-30

Total Pages: 72

ISBN-13: 9781984385567

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

GAO-06-758 No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services

State and Local Implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act." Volume IV
State and Local Implementation of the

Author: Brian Gill

Publisher:

Published: 2008

Total Pages: 112

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

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.).

No Child Left Behind?
No Child Left Behind?

Author: Paul E. Peterson

Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield

Published: 2003-11-18

Total Pages: 364

ISBN-13: 9780815796206

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act is the most important legislation in American education since the 1960s. The law requires states to put into place a set of standards together with a comprehensive testing plan designed to ensure these standards are met. Students at schools that fail to meet those standards may leave for other schools, and schools not progressing adequately become subject to reorganization. The significance of the law lies less with federal dollar contributions than with the direction it gives to federal, state, and local school spending. It helps codify the movement toward common standards and school accountability. Yet NCLB will not transform American schools overnight. The first scholarly assessment of the new legislation, No Child Left Behind? breaks new ground in the ongoing debate over accountability. Contributors examine the law's origins, the political and social forces that gave it shape, the potential issues that will surface with its implementation, and finally, the law's likely consequences for American education.

State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume VI
State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume VI

Author: Jay G. Chambers

Publisher:

Published: 2009

Total Pages: 204

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

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.).

State and Local Implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act". Volume V
State and Local Implementation of the

Author: Amy Elledge

Publisher:

Published: 2009

Total Pages: 105

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

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.).