no superintendent left behind: implementing nclb february 23, 2006 terri duggan schwartzbeck...
TRANSCRIPT
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing
NCLBFebruary 23, 2006
Terri Duggan SchwartzbeckAmerican Association of School Administrators
Getting Started
• You• Your district• Your experiences with AYP
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
What’s Ahead
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
What’s Ahead
Implementation – First Year
• December 2001 – Bill passed in Congress• January 8, 2002 – signed by President Bush• July 24, 2002 – first letter with guidance to
state chiefs• August 6, 2002 – first NPRM• Fall 2002 – first round of AYP identifications • December 2, 2002 – first final regulations
dealing with assessment
Implementation – Second Year
• January 2003 – funding fight begins
• June 10, 2003 – all state plans “approved” by USED
• December 9, 2003 – final regulation regarding assessment of students with disabilities – 1 percent rule
Implementation – Third Year
• February 20, 2004 – first flexibility policy regarding LEP students
• March 15, 2004 – flexibility for teacher quality
• March 30, 2004 – flexibility on participation rates
• Spring and Summer – continued funding fights
• November 5, 2004 – Paige announces intent to resign
• November 17, 2004 – Spellings nominated as new Secretary
Implementation – Fourth Year• January-April 2005 – Connecticut Fight
• April 7, 2005 – Spellings announces more plans for flexibility
• April 20, 2005 – NEA Lawsuit• August 22, 2005 – Connecticut Lawsuit• August 31, 2005 – Chicago supplemental services
waiver• October 21, 2005 – Teacher Quality – good faith effort• November 21, 2005 – Spellings announces plan for
growth models• November 23, 2005 – NEA lawsuit dismissed• December 14, 2005 – updated regulations on
assessment of special education – 1+2=3
Where Are We Now?
• AYP – How are the numbers?• State accountability plans
– What’s behind the numbers?
• Special Education regulations • Growth Models• Reauthorization talks
% of Schools Not Making AYP, 2005
FL: 64%
20%
43%
12%16%
41%
40%
26%
56%
35%
21%
47%
9%
24%
20%
44%25%
36%
6%
16%
13%
54%
24%13%
19%
21%
35%17%
30%
11%
24%
MA: 44%
RI: 19%
NH: 39%
VT: 3.4%
CT: 20%
NJ: 36%
DE: 33%
MD: 20%
DC: 49%
53%
2%
7%
66%
13%
4.4%
27%
5%
8.6%
18%
20%
% of Schools In Need of Improvement, 2005
FL:32%
13%15%
13%
9%
34%
27%
10%4%
15%
38%
17%
17 5%
6%
13%
4%
7%
29%
30%
8%
4%
13%
6%
9%
5%
NH: 7%
VT: 2%
MA: 24%
CT: 15%
RI: 9%
NJ: 25%
DE: 21%
MD: 18%
DC: 42%
19
6%
7%
9%
7%
3%
2%
-
48%
4%
19%
16%
9%
2.4%
19%
14%
% of DISTRICTS Not Making AYP, 2005
39%
MA: 17%
RI: 19%
NH: 9%
VT: 10%
CT: 17%
NJ: %
DE: %
MD: 38%
12%
56%
4%
66% 45%
50%
29%
8%
78%
32%
24%
44%
6%
47%
6%
23%
7%16%
12%
4%
1%
28%
38%
80%
92%
31%
% of DISTRICTS In Need of Improvement, 2005
34%
VT: 3.4%
MA: 65%
MD: 33%
15%
15%
17%
30%
7%
0
0.8%
27%2%
1.1%
7%
3.5%
24%
27%
0.2%
11% 10%
34%
80%
7%
8%
51%
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
State Action & Lawsuits
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
What’s Ahead
NCLB Implementation: State Accountability Plans
Subgroup Size• Biggest change: switch to proportional
model– GA: 40 students or 10%, with a cap of 75– FL: 30 and 15% or 100– More states now with cap of 100 or 200
• A few other states increased subgroup size – HI, IL
• Different sizes for different subgroups now frowned upon – NE eliminated– NPRM prohibits
• Lingering question: group size applied to grade or school? Some confusing language
Subgroup Sizes
Does Subgroup Size Matter?In one state…
N=40, Margin of Error
19% miss AYP
N=40, No Margin
30% miss AYP
N=5, Margin of Error
52% miss AYP
N=5, No Margin
88% miss AYP
How is subgroup size impacting your district?
Confidence Interval• Increasing number of states using 99% confidence interval• 75% confidence interval for safe harbor
Confidence Interval for Safe Harbor
Maryland’s Highland Elementary; Source: Maryland Department of Education
Understanding Confidence Intervals
These groups missed the target but made AYP.
Confidence interval
Confidence Interval and Subgroup Size
The larger the subgroup, the smaller the “wiggle room” provided by the confidence interval.
Source: Maryland State Department of Education
How are confidence intervals impacting your district?
Annual Measurable Objectives
Every state has…
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A starting
point
Annual Measurable Objectives – annual targets that must be met to make AYP and
determine the path to proficiency
And every state must have a goal
of 100% of students at the proficient level
by 2014
Backloading or “Balloon Payment”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stair Step
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Linear
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Changes in AMOs• New assessments=new baselines, new objectives in at least 5 states• Florida, Virginia, and Missouri switched from stair step to linear
Use of Performance IndicesWeighted index
– Gives “credit” for students scoring just below proficient– But cannot get “extra credit” for students scoring advanced
District AYP
Same subject +
All grade spans +
Two consecutive years
=31 states
AYP Grade Span
AYP INOI AYP INOI
CA 63.6%
36.4%
85.6%
14.4%
GA 36.5%
63.5%
93.4%
6.6%
Does it matter?
Data from the Harvard Civil Rights Project
But it may also help and hurt districts disproportionately!
How are AMOs and district AYP impacting your district?
Graduation Rates
• NCES 4 year calculation• Extra time for students with
disabilities• Thresholds and goals vary
– from 58% to 100%– some states only need to improve
0.1% per year
• No GEDs can count
Full Academic Year
• 180 days?• October 1?• Challenge for states with many year round
schools• Few states making it a “full” year
– Continuous enrollment through two spring testing cycles (HI)
– May 1 and next year’s assessment (IL)– Must be enrolled by July 1 of previous year (NJ)– 140 days (NC)
Retests
• Virginia – finally approved• Other states – AL, MI, NV, NJ, NY,
OR, TN, TX, WA, WY• Must not result in pressure to
students to retake exams solely to get a higher score
Assessing Special Education Students Under NCLB
A special case
Policies regarding special education assessment
• The 1 percent rule– Caps number of proficient and
advanced scores on alternate assessments to alternate standards• Severely cognitively disabled students• Includes out of level if applicable
• Issues with accommodations• Subgroup size
New Policy – the 2 percent rule
• Caps score on alternate assessments to modified standards– Persistent academic difficulties
• Transition defined as a “proxy” which calculates a number equal to two percent that is added to the special education population number of proficient scores
States using the 2% proxy
2 Percent Rule Codified in New Proposed Regulations
• Modified achievement standards
• Focus on clear guidelines – states must have criteria for IEP teams to determine eligibility
• Out of level testing• Subgroup sizes for
groups of students• 1+2 really does = 3• Retests• Coordination between
ESEA and IDEA
Concerns• What is a modified
standard?• Delay in regulations• Role of IEP teams• Concern for small
districts• Scientific basis
In 2005, 35 states increased their targets for the first time. How did
changes affect AYP?• Most states made major changes to
state accountability plans• No clear pattern• Most states decreased schools not
making AYP between 03 and 04 and increased between 04 and 05
• However, number of schools not making AYP in 05 was not nearly as bad as feared
AYP and Schools In Need of Improvement, Total
Nationwide30.5%
6.9%
23.5%
11.9%
25.8%
12.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Schools Not Making AYP Schools In Need of Improvement
Data from NEA, January 2006
Biggest Changes
• Special Education Assessment• Identifying Districts for
Improvement• Subgroup Size• Graduation Rates• Performance Indices• Annual Measurable Objectives
Lowering Standards?State seeks changes to U.S. education lawLouisville Courier-Journal, 11/30/05Federal rules called too unforgiving
Kentucky public schools would have an easier time meeting No Child Left Behind's reading and math standards and avoiding penalties under changes the state is asking the federal government to approve.
Relaxed standards part of reason for
better scores
Chicago Sun-Times, 11/9/05
When the state first released test results this summer, it looked
as if more schools and districts had met federal testing goals
than last year. But relaxed state standards this year, not
necessarily better performance, account for some of that
growth, new data analyzed by the Chicago Sun-Times shows.
The softened standards made it easier for some groups,
particularly limited English and special needs students, to pass.
Standards for No Child law eased
Chicago Sun-Times, 6/29/05
State eyes
standards
changeMiami Herald, 3/17/05
After hearing complaints from
school districts, the state of
Florida may change its
standards for the federal No
Child Left Behind Act.
How have changes to state accountability plans been discussed in your state?
Implementing Choice• Still low turnout
– around 1 percent
• District compliance
• Logistical challenges– Schools identified
on time– Capacity: class
size, space
20% set-asideChoice transportation:(i) an amount equal to 5 percent
of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide, or pay for, transportation under paragraph (9);
(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 to provide supplemental educational services under subsection (e); and
(iii) an amount equal to the remaining 10 percent of its allocation under subpart 2 for transportation under paragraph (9), supplemental educational services under subsection (e), or both, as the agency determines.
How long should funds be reserved? “Adequate” and “sufficient” time
Implementing Supplemental Services
• Low numbers of students served – 12% – 226,000 of 2 million (2004)
• Districts as providers• 20% set-aside – 5% for choice• SES before choice in 4 districts in VA• Best practices:
– Provider fairs– Asking parents to rank– District assessments help with monitoring
SES Provider Types
Private For Profit
49%
Private Nonprofit
Nonreligious
18%
School Districts
14%
Don’t Know 5%
Other 1%
Private Nonprofit
Religious 7%
Other Public 5%
Source: Center on Education Policy, 2005
Implementing Supplemental Services
Challenges: States, Feds, Districts, Providers all casting blame
• Schools identified on time• Number of providers, esp. rural and inner city• Low completion rates• Complicated paperwork• Funding• Provider capacity, esp. for special needs
students• Evaluating and monitoring; showing progress• Quality of teachers
Implementing Teacher Quality
• “Flexibility”– HOUSSE– March 2004: Rural, science & multi-subject
• 29 state have been monitored by ED– Focus on hiring and retention in 03-04– Focus on compliance with parent notification
requirements and paraprofessionals in 04-05• Difficulty of data• Importance of good faith efforts = paperwork• The “highly qualified” dichotomy• Deadline: end of 2005-06 school year
– Both teachers and paraprofessionals
State Requirements for Teacher Quality
Education Week, February 15, 2006
How have you experienced the implementation of choice, supplemental services, and teacher
quality?
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
What’s Ahead
The goal of NCLB and AYPThe Flat Tax
The current AYP system
After all, it’s no longer this…
English Math
additional indicator/
graduation95%
participation
All Students
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian
White
LEP
Poverty
IEP
But this:Reading Math 95% Addl
Ind.Graduation
AMO AMO with CI
Safe Harbor
(with or w/o
CI)
Retest 1% cap on
alt. assess
2% proxy mod.
assess
AMO AMO with CI
Safe Harbor
Retest 1% cap on
alt. assess
2% proxy mod.
assess
With med.
emerg., FAY
With or w/o lag?
4 year NCES?
Extra yearsSWD
White
Black
Hisp.
Asian
Native Am.
LEP
Econ Disadv
Spec.Needs
Repeat for each grade level…
But children aren’t numbers.
How can we have a system that:• provides accountability in a way that
allows for the unique differences in children, schools, and districts?
• Works for each child? All children? Every child?
• Captures what we want to capture about success in school?
Growth Models
• What is a growth model?• NWEA (how many of you are
using?)• Political context• Current ED policy
States Applying to Use Growth Model
What’s Ahead: NCLB in Congress
• More bills introduced during first session then all of the 108th Congress.
• Rank & file members are disgruntled.• Committee leadership has no desire
to open up the law.• There will be more hearings held in
preparation for reauthorization.• Full reauthorization will not occur
until 2007 or 2009.
States whose Representative or Senator have sponsored a bill in the
U.S. Congress to amend NCLB
Data from NEA, January 2006
Reauthorization: Lines in the Sand
• Commitment to 100% by 2014• “No excuses” mentality • Does money matter?• Some openness to growth models• Other fundamental divides
– Role of local governance (teacher quality)
– Role of federal government
AASA’s Positions
• Problems in NCLB– Assessment– Special groups
Not worth fixingInstead, we need to renegotiate the
terms federal/state/local partnership– Compensation for services provided
under a contract
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
What’s Ahead
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
State Action on NCLBState Legislatures
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
NCSL Report Recommendations
• Congress should create a revitalized state-federal partnership that acknowledges diversity among states and shifts focus from processes and requirements to outcomes and results.
• Remove obstacles that stifle state innovations and undermine state programs that were proving to work before passage of the act. Federal waivers should be granted and publicized for innovative programs;
• Fully fund the act and provide states the financial flexibility to meet its goals.
• Remove the one-size-fits-all method that measures student performance:
– encourage more sophisticated and accurate systems that gauge the growth of individual students and not just groups of students.
– States believe the 100-percent proficiency goal is not statistically achievable and that struggling schools need the opportunity to address problems before losing parts of their student populations;
– Allow for multiple measures
• Give IDEA primacy over NCLB in cases of conflict. • Recognize that some schools face special challenges, including
adequately teaching students with disabilities and English language learners. The law also needs to recognize the differences among rural, suburban and urban schools.
Lawsuits
• Connecticut– Testing every year– Cost and quality of tests– State must show that it exhausted all
measures• NEA
– Unfunded mandate– On appeal
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
New Regulations
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
Funding: Bottom Line
• It’s really, really bad.– First cut in over a decade.
• Perfect storm around Title I.– Basic grants get cut.– Concentration grants level funded.– Targeted grants increase.– Education Finance Incentive Grants
increase.– Overall cut.
• It’s not going to get better, unless…
FY 06 Federal Funding for 2006 – 2007 School Year
• Education cut for the first time in over a decade– $651 million cut with 1% across the board
• K-12 programs received major cuts– Title I - $26.5 million– IDEA - $7 million
• Goes from 18.6 percent to 17.8 percent– Education Technology - $224 million
• A 45 percent cut– Safe and Drug Free Schools - $90 million
• A 20 percent cut– Education Innovative Block Grant - $99 million
• A 50 percent cut
Funding Cuts for Title I• Overall Title I was cut by $26.5 million for FY 2006
– Basic Grants cut by $126.5 million– Concentration Grants level funded– Targeted Grants receive $50 million increase– Education Finance Incentive Grants increased $50 million
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants
Title I and the Perfect Storm
• In FY 04 (2004 – 2005 school year), ½ of all districts lost funding in Title I.
• In FY 05 (2005 – 2006 school year), we anticipate that 2/3 of all districts will lose Title I funding.
• These funding cuts are due to three areas:– Sole increases for targeted grants and
education finance incentive grants.– Use of new census poverty numbers.– Across the board cuts being applied to only
the basic grants.
President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget
• Budget was introduced on February 6, 2006• Education was cut by $2.1 billion or 3.8 %• Bush’s budget reduced the federal
commitment to IDEA– Reduces the federal share from 17.8% to 17%
• Title I Grants to school districts are level-funded.
• Medicaid reimbursement for school districts is eliminated.– End to administrative and transportation
claiming.
President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget
• Budget disproportionately cuts education programs.– Out of 141 programs eliminated in entire
federal budget, 42 programs are education related.
• Successful programs would be eliminated under FY 2007 budget: – Perkins Career and Technical Education– Safe and Drug Free Schools– Title II, Part D – Education Technology State
Grants
Competing Priorities of the Federal Budget
• Pressure of balancing the budget– Impact of deficit spending.– Congress would like to balance budget on back
of domestic programs, i.e. education
• Large growth of mandatory spending– Social Security, Medicare
• Educators must be heard during the education debate to avoid being cut again.
• Talk about potential cuts in terms of impact on services to students and staffing.
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
% ofFederalIncrease
Prepared by AASA
Decline of the Federal Investment in
Education
Federal funding for K-12 will continue to decline
$34,500
$35,000
$35,500
$36,000
$36,500
$37,000
$37,500
$38,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
K-12 Federal FundingIn millions
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Most People Greatly Overestimate Federal Funding for Public Schools
1%
5%
15%
29%
15%
16%
2%
81% - 100%
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%
11% - 20%
1% - 10%
None
% Federal Funding
Thinking about the funding for public schools in your community, what percentage of this funding do you think is provided by the federal government?
N=1,001 AASA Polling Ipsos Public Affairs 1-05
Funding and Federalism
More federal mandates and requirements
+ cuts in federal funding
= a local tax passed on
to taxpayers?
We need to renegotiate the terms of the federal/ state/local partnership
• Compensation for services provided under a contract
• Less money, less services• More money, more
services
Congress does not feel accountable to you on federal funding for education
No Superintendent Left Behind: Implementing NCLB
Implementation Overview
How Accountability
is Working
New Regulations
Money Update
Advocating about NCLB
State Action & Lawsuits
AASA Polling Data
Where does the public (and parents) get their
information about public schools?
Who do they believe?
Newspapers and Television Are The Predominant Sources of Information About
Public Schools Was the Source of the MOST RECENT item about public schools you saw, read, or heard…
6%3%
49%
35%
7%5%
1%
46%
7%
38%
Print Television Radio Internet Other
August '03
October '03
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
7%8% 5% 5%
85%
2%6%
82%
National newspaper Local newspaper Magazine Other
August '03
October '03
Local Newspapers Are The Major Source Of Information About Public Schools
Did you read this news in a national newspaper, such as USA Today or the New York Times, a local newspaper, or a magazine, such as Time or Newsweek?
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
3%
19%
9%
70%
1%
14%
71%
12%
National newsprogram
Cable newsprogram
Local newsprogram
Other
August '03
October '03
Local Television News Is the Clear Major Television Source of News About Public Schools
Did you see this news on a national news program, a cable news program, a local news program, or some other type of program?
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
67%
24%
6% 3%
77%
14%
5% 3%
Very important Somewhatimportant
Not too important Not at all important
All Parents
How important is it to you personally that information about public schools in your area is reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports?
The Public, And Especially Parents, Want Media To Report On Public Schools
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
49%
53%
60%
27%
38%
29%
Operational information, such as schoolcalendars, lunch menus, or emergencyschedule changes such as snow days
Information that indicates how wellschools are developing better citizens,such as student and teacher awards or
extra curricular activities
Policy information, such as achievementstandards, student performance, and
test scores
Very important Somewhat important Not too important Not at all important
How important is it to you personally that the following types of information about public schools in your area be reported in local newspapers or on local TV or radio reports?
Respondents Want Stories about Achievement, But Information Regarding Student Citizenship
Is Most Important Overall
91% Total Important
89% Total Important
76% Total Important
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
What Information About Test Scores Is Most Important?
4%
1%
3%
9%
17%
20%
20%
26%% of students passing state
tests
Trends in test scores from previous years
Increases in the # of students passing
state test
None of above
Don’t care abouttest scores
Not Sure
% of students not passing state tests
Test Scores byRace/ethnicity and
Socioeconomic status
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
2%
6%
7%
13%
15%
21%
25%
5%
11%
13%
20%
27%
32%
35%
Total mentions
First mention
Information Considered Most Important On A School Website
Curriculumobjectives
School meetings-PTA, parent/teacher night
Disciplinepolicies
Standardizedtest scores
Gradepolicies
School officialresponse tostate/federal
criticisms
Cafeteriamenus
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
So, local media is the primary outlet, and
local school leaders are a trusted source.
Credibility As A News Source On Public Schools Starts In The Classroom And Ends In
Washington
59%
61%
67%
72%
80%
86%
69%
74%
79%
84%
88%
89%
School administrators
School leaders
Principals
Your child´s principal*
Teachers
Your child´s teacher(s)*
October '03 August '03
On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about public school education.
Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Credibility Of Public School Education News Sources continued
39%
48%
40%
49%
56%
55%
56%
58%
44%
50%
57%
63%
66%
Federal officials
National Media **
State officials
AASA
NEA
Superintendents
School Board Members **
Local Media **
October '03 August '03
On a scale from 0 to 10, please tell me how credible you think that source is when it comes to news about public school education.
Note: Chart shows total % credible (6-10)Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
When a high level official from the U.S. Department of Education says there is sufficient funding to meet new federal standards for student achievement and a local school leader
says the federal initiatives are under-funded, who is more believable?
Local school leader 80%
High-level government
official 14%
Neither 4%
Not sure 2%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid February 2004
Senior researcher froma think tank
7%
College orUniversityProfessor
8%
Local schoolleader
24%
Local Teacher
53%
Who do you think would have the best ideas about how to improve schools?
Other 8%
Included in “Other”
Political Candidate 3%Federal Official 2%
None of the above 2%Not Sure 1%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid March 2004
Suppose you read or heard a news report in which a high-level official from the U.S. Department of Education says that students are not making sufficient progress because teachers and administrators are not trying hard enough. Is that something you would definitely believe, probably believe, definitely not believe or probably not believe?
Not sure
Believe
Not believe
Probably Definitely Other
37% 24%
26% 11%
2%
Total believe 37%
Total not believe 61%
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
How do NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress impact the
public’s view of public schools?
What Impact Does News About Test Results Have?
• The public believes the state labels as applied more than federal labels
• Failing to make AYP makes about 2/3’s of the public impression of school quality decline
• The impression of decline is slightly greater among parents than the general public
There Are Either More Negative Stories Than Positive Stories Or Readers Read Stories As
Negative
60%
6%
34%
Positive news Negative news Neither positivenor negative
Source: August 2003 poll
Would you say that the most recent item about public schools you saw, read or heard made you
feel better or worse about public education?
10
63
26
9
63
27
Worse
Better
Oct. 03 Feb. 04
Neither better nor worse
43% 42% 40%43% 41%
51% 53% 53%48%
53%
6% 5% 7% 9%6%
October '03 February '04 March '04 August '04 J anuary '05
Right Direction Wrong Direction Not Sure
Are public schools in the U.S. headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
A Majority Consistently Say Public Schools Are Headed in the Wrong Direction
N=1001
A Majority Disagrees with “One Size Fits All” Penalties for Schools
8%11%
25%
53%
10%15%
23%
51%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
All Parents
Under the federal No Child Left Behind accountability system, there are at least 36 achievement targets that each school must meet. Currently, a school that misses 1 or 2 of its targets receives the same penalty as a school that misses nearly all of its targets. Do agree or disagree with this way of penalizing schools?
N=1,000Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
6%
3%
21%
63%
5%
2%
20%
68%
Neither
Both equally
Federal labels
State labels
All Parents
As you may know, schools around the country are rated in two ways – a state accountability system required under state law and a federal accountability system required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Is your
opinion about the quality of schools in your community influenced more by state labels or federal labels?
People Are Influenced More By State Labels
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
8%
2%
17%
64%
6%
2%
20%
66%
Neither
Both equally
Federal labels
State labels
All Parents
As you may know, statewide test results are coming out this summer. Each state has their own system for rating schools in addition to federal requirements. A school may get a good grade under their state
accountability system and be put on a list of low performing schools under the federal system. Is your opinion about the quality of schools in your community influenced more by state labels or federal labels?
More Information Does Not Affect Preference for State Labels
Source: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Impressions of School Quality Will Decline Some for Schools in the Federal Penalty Phase
24%
42%
31%
26%
45%
27%
Decline significantly Decline somewhat Not much effect
All Parents
If you heard that a school in your community received a passing mark under the state accountability system, but has failed to make adequate progress and is in the penalty phase under the federal requirements, would your impression of that school’s quality decline significantly, decline somewhat, or would it not have much of an effect at all?
N=xxxSource: AASA polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid
What messages are effective when talking about student
achievement and accountability?
Tests are important and mostly fair, but have
limitations.
Performance is THE Indicator of Success
7%
8%
10%
12%
19%
61%
Quality of school staff
Personal development
Attendance
Environment for success
Student enthusiasm
Student performance
Name one or two results that would convince you that a school was successful with all of its students.
Specific elements of “Student Performance” include:
Good test scores (25%)
Number of graduates (15%)
Good performance on standardized testing (12%)
Students are literate (7%)
Quality of graduates (5%)
Continual improvement (5%)
Source: 2003 poll by Ipsos Reid
Source: Public Agenda 12/00 119
From your experience, would you say these tests ask fair questions that you should be able to answer, or are the questions so difficult or unfair that you cannot be expected
to answer them? [Asked of public school students, grades 6-12, who have taken standardized tests]
19
80
Fair questions (80%)
Difficult or unfair questions (19%)
Don’t know
Percentage of students saying:
Are Tests Fair?
Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May 2000
120
A student’s progress for one school year can be accurately summarized by a single standardized test
Total Agree 32%, Total Disagree 62%
11%
42%
5%
21%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Strongly Agree11%, Somewhat
Agree 21%
Strongly Disagree42%, SomewhatDisagree 20%
Don't Know 5%
Are Tests Fair?
Source: Luntz/Laszlo Poll, May 2000
121
13%
24%
7%
31%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strongly Agree 13%,Somewhat Agree
31%
Strongly Disagree24%, SomewhatDisagree 24%
Don't Know 7%
Standardized test scores accurately reflect what children know about the subject being tested Total Agree 44%, Total Disagree 48%
Are Tests Fair?
What accounts for student performance on statewide
tests?• Although the public recognizes the
power of families over student achievement, they think that good teaching can overcome about any non-school factors.
• The public thinks teachers and school leaders are more able to overcome the effects of poverty than programs to alleviate poverty.
Quality of Teaching, Student Motivation Top Factors Affecting Test
Performance Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement
tests.
74%
72%
67%
58%
58%
21%
23%
19%
27%
35%
32%
76%
9%
6%
4%
4%
4%
4%Quality of teaching in the current
school year
The student's motivation to workhard in school
Student's home learningenvironment
Quality of teaching in previous years
Quality of textbooks and materials
Health issues such as visual/hearingproblems
A lot of influence Some influence Not InfluentialSource: July 2005 poll
Significant Majority Feel Family, Income, Community and Health Affect
Test Scores Now I am going to read you a list of items that could have an effect on a student’s score on statewide achievement tests.
47%
52%
41%
26%
41%
36%
45%
44%
47%
41%
26%
14%
13%
11%
11%Family factors
Income related issues
Community factors
Health issues such as asthma/chronicillness
Physical condition of school building
A lot of influence Some influence Not Influential
Source: July 2005 poll
Good teaching can overcome family, community and income-related factors that could affect performance
on statewide tests
5%
40% 41%
13%
1%Not sure
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Somewhat Not sure
11%
41%
Total Agree 81%
Total Disagree 18%
Source: July 2005 poll
28%
9%
16%
67%
88%
81%
Programs toAlleviatePoverty
Teachers
SchoolLeadership
Just a little/Nothing Great Deal/Fair Amount
Children from low-income homes generally test worse on statewide achievement tests than other children. Please tell us whether this action or group can do a great deal, a fair amount, just a little or
nothing at all to improve test scores for low-income children?
Source: July 2005 poll
When talking about accountability talk about
EACH student.
When talking about achievement talk about
ALL or EVERY student.
79%
20% 1%
A system that measures theprogress of each individual
child
A system that measures theprogress of all children
Not sure
Measuring Student Progress Should Focus On EACH Child
There is a lot of discussion about the best way to measure student progress in our public schools. Which of the following ways of measuring student progress comes
closest to your own opinion?
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005
40%
16%
13%
10%
6%
15%
Following the progress of each studentfrom year to year on state tests
Making adequately yearly progress asdefined under the federal No Child Left
Behind Act
Comparing average state scores for theschool as a whole from year to year
Student grades
Average state test scores for each schoolas a whole
Not sure
Following Students Year to Year Is Best Measure Of Teaching
Effectiveness8. Thinking about the impact of teaching, which of the following do you think is the best way to
accurately measure the job that teachers are doing in educating children…
Individuals who feel U.S. public schools are headed in the right direction are more likely to report AYP as an accurate measure of teaching effectiveness (23% vs. 12% among those who feel schools are headed in the wrong direction).
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid July 2005
Achievement – A slight advantage for “all”
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
In thinking about levels of achievement in our country’s public schools, public schools should focus on high achievement for…
ALL children52%
EACH child45%
Not sure3%
Quality – “All” trumps “Each”
10. In thinking about quality in our country’s public schools, which of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion…public schools should focus on…
ALL children58%
EACH child38%
Not sure4%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
Success – “Every Child” vs. “All Children”
11. And which of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion… I want public schools to focus on success for…
EVERY child52%
ALL children
43%
Not sure5%
Source: AASA poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid September 2005
Wrapping It Up
Primary source of information for the public
Local media – print and TV
Credible sources Teachers and school leaders – NOT federal officials
NCLB and tests Important, but have limitations
When talking about accountability
EACH student, state ratings first; progress matters
When talking about achievement or quality
ALL students or EVERY student
Where Do We Go From Here?
What Now?• How can you advocate for changes in the
implementation of NCLB in your state? – Working with the key players in your state
• Moving forward on a renegotiated state/federal/local partnership– Start conversations with your congressional
delegation– Talk about how funding cuts hurt you – be specific –
what staff or services are you losing?
• Keep the lines of communication open with your community, build more community support for public schools– Use what we’ve learned about effective advocacy