Teachers Selected by U.S. Department of Education as Presenters at Regional Workshops--No Child Left Behind workshops to help teachers exchange best practices and improve student achievement

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Student Achievement ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Improve Student Achievement

Instruction Matters: Lessons from a Mixed-Method Evaluation of Out-Of-School Time Tutoring under No Child Left Behind

2014 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalee B. Good ◽  
Patricia Burch ◽  
Mary S. Stewart ◽  
Rudy Acosta ◽  
Carolyn Heinrich
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Parental Choice ◽  
Supplemental Educational Services ◽  
Out Of School Time ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
School Time ◽  
Instructional Core ◽  
Supplemental Services

Background/Context Under supplemental educational services (“supplemental services”), a parental choice provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), schools that have not made adequate yearly progress in increasing student achievement are required to offer low-income families free, afterschool tutoring. Existing research shows low attendance rates among eligible students and little to no aggregate effects on achievement for students who do attend. Focus of study We employ a framework grounded in examining the instructional setting, or “instructional core,” and we draw on the unique contributions of qualitative research to help explain the limited effects of supplemental services on student achievement. Specifically, we address the following research question: How can in-depth examination of the instructional core explain the impact of supplemental services on student learning? Research Design Our findings draw on data from an ongoing mixed-method and multisite study of the implementation and impact of supplemental educational services in five urban school districts located in four states. Although this paper includes quantitative data from this study, analysis focuses on qualitative data, including observations of tutoring sessions using a standardized observation instrument; semistructured interviews with district staff, provider administrators, and tutors; focus groups with parents of eligible students; and document analysis. Findings We identify two primary reasons for a lack of effects. First, there is a “treatment exposure” problem where most students receive far less than 40 hours of tutoring over the course of a school year, a critical threshold for seeing significant effects on achievement. In addition, there are discrepancies between an invoiced hour of tutoring and actual instructional time. Second, supplemental services has an instructional quality problem. Instruction lacks innovation; the curriculum typically does not align to that of the day school; programs do not meet all students’ instructional needs, especially students with disabilities and English language learners; and there can be considerable variation in quality within the same provider. Conclusions Our findings lay the foundations for being able to not only establish best practices for supplemental services, but to suggest policy changes to facilitate these best practices and offer insights to a host of other parental choice, out-of-school time (OST), and accountability-based reforms.

Why Connecticut Sued the Federal Government over No Child Left Behind

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Formative Assessments ◽  
Closing The Achievement Gap ◽  
Financial Responsibility ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Summative Assessments

In April 2005, Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal filed the first lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education over the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this essay, Attorney General Blumenthal presents Connecticut's reasons for legally challenging NCLB. He argues that prior to ratification of the act, Connecticut had been nationally recognized for its assessment program aimed at closing the achievement gap and increasing accountability. NCLB mandates that require testing at all grade levels would force Connecticut to replace its formative assessments with summative assessments and divert their limited educational funds from supplementary educational programs to the expansion of the state's testing office. Blumenthal argues that NCLB's unfunded testing mandates are illegal and may prove detrimental to Connecticut students' academic achievement. While he strongly supports the goals of NCLB, Blumenthal concludes that if schools are to achieve those goals, it is imperative that the federal government allow for flexibility and assume financial responsibility for implementation of NCLB.

School Accountability

2018 ◽  
pp. 520-550
Author(s):  
Morgan Polikoff ◽  
Shira Korn
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Accountability ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Accountability Systems ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Accountability Policy ◽  
Improve Student Achievement ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

This chapter summarizes the history and effects of standards-based school accountability in the United States and offers suggestions for accountability policy moving forward. It analyzes standards-based accountability in both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, and discusses the effects of accountability systems. The authors argue that school accountability systems can improve student achievement, but that unintended consequences are possible. How accountability systems are designed—the metrics and measures used and the consequences for performance—has both symbolic and practical implications for the efficacy of the system and the individuals affected. Synthesizing what is known about the design of school accountability systems, the authors propose policy choices that can improve the validity, reliability, transparency, and fairness of these systems.

Look Back: The feds, the states, and Kappan

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Teresa Preston
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Federal Mandates ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Federal Department ◽  
Education Act ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

Across the decades, the balance of power between the federal government, states, and local districts has shifted numerous times, and Kappan authors have weighed in on each of those shifts. Kappan Managing Editor Teresa Preston traces those shifts, beginning with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which gave the federal government a larger role in public education. Further expansion occurred under the Carter administration, with the launch of the new federal Department of Education. As the new department continued operations under Reagan, its priorities expanded, but actual decision-making authority reverted to states. States, in turn, began involving themselves more with instructional and curricular matters, a trend that eventually made its way back to the federal level, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, federal mandates had the effect of requiring state and local levels to take on additional responsibilities, without necessarily having the capacity to do so. This capacity issue remains a concern under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document