We Are the 5%

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 243-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew McEachin ◽  
Morgan S. Polikoff
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Adequate Yearly Progress ◽  
School Level ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Identification Schemes ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The Stability

This article uses data from California to analyze the results of the proposed accountability system in the Senate’s Harkin-Enzi draft Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. The authors analyze existing statewide school-level data from California, applying the accountability criteria proposed in the draft law. Comparing the proposed system to the No Child Left Behind Act’s Adequate Yearly Progress provisions, they draw conclusions about the stability of the proposed identification schemes and the types of schools likely to be identified. They conclude with several policy recommendations that could be easily incorporated into the law, based on their analysis and the existing literature.

Adequate (or Adipose?) Yearly Progress: Assessing the Effect of “No Child Left Behind” on Children's Obesity

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Anderson ◽  
Kristin F. Butcher ◽  
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Adequate Yearly Progress ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
School Level ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Weight Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

This paper investigates how accountability pressures under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may have affected students’ rate of overweight. Schools facing pressure to improve academic outcomes may reallocate their efforts in ways that have unintended consequences for children's health. To examine the impact of school accountability, we create a unique panel dataset containing school-level data on test scores and students’ weight outcomes from schools in Arkansas. We code schools as facing accountability pressures if they are on the margin of making Adequate Yearly Progress, measured by whether the school's minimum-scoring subgroup had a passing rate within 5 percentage points of the threshold. We find evidence of small effects of accountability pressures on the percent of students at a school who are overweight. This finding is little changed if we controlled for the school's lagged rate of overweight, or use alternative ways to identify schools facing NCLB pressure.

Oral translation as a test accommodation for ELLs

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Stansfield
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Adequate Yearly Progress ◽  
English Language ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Education Act

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (US Government, 2001), the current iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, makes it clear that states, districts, schools and teachers are accountable for the education of English language learners (ELLs), as well as all other students. To implement an accountability system, NCLB requires states to create content standards (a set of curricular goals and objectives) for English language arts, mathematics, and science. They must also develop and administer assessments that measure student progress toward mastery of these content standards. Finally, states, districts, and schools must demonstrate that they are making adequate yearly progress toward bringing all students to a previously established level of mastery of these standards (called Proficient) with the goal that by the year 2014 all students will achieve this level.

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).

Getting Ruby a Quality Public Education: Forty-Two Years of Building the Demand for Quality Public Schools through Parental and Public Involvement

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARNOLD FEGE
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School Improvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
History Of ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Access To Data

In this article, Arnold Fege identifies parental and public engagement as critical to sustaining equity in public education. He traces the history of this engagement from the integration of schools after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the implementation in 1965 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through the provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). He finds that while NCLB gives parents access to data, it does not foster use of that information to mobilize the public to get involved in school improvement. Fege concludes with historical lessons applicable to the reauthorization of NCLB, emphasizing enforcement of provisions for both parental and community-based involvement in decisionmaking, resource allocation, and assurance of quality and equity.

scholarly journals Meeting The Needs Of Rural Site-Bound Paraeducators

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Cathey White ◽  
George White ◽  
Mary Susan E. Fishbaugh
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Rural Site ◽  
State University ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Montana State University ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Program Of Study ◽  
Associate Of Arts ◽  
Education Act

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 2002-No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates that paraeducators who work with today’s children and youth are highly qualified.  Montana State University-Billings (MSU-Billings) has revised its Associate of Arts Program of Study in Education with the intention of supporting Montana and other rural states in complying with this mandate.  In additioin to a two-year program of study at our main campus, the MSU-Billings College of Technology provides an exam for paraeducators with preparatory/remedial support modules.

scholarly journals How Feasible is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? Simulations of School AYP "Uniform Averaging" and "Safe Harbor" under the No Child Left Behind Act

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaekyung Lee
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
School Performance ◽  
Adequate Yearly Progress ◽  
School Failure ◽  
Performance Data ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
The Past ◽  
Accountability System

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that schools make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) towards the goal of having 100 percent of their students become proficient by year 2013-14. Through simulation analyses of Maine and Kentucky school performance data collected during the 1990s, this study investigates how feasible schools would have met the AYP targets if the mandate had been applied in the past with “uniform averaging (rolling averages)” and “safe harbor” options that have potential to help reduce the number of schools needing improvement or corrective action. Contrary to some expectations, the applications of both options would do little to reduce the risk of massive school failure due to unreasonably high AYP targets for all student groups. Implications of the results for the NCLB school accountability system and possible ways to make the current AYP more feasible and fair are discussed.

No Child Left Behind

2011 ◽  
pp. 634-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junko Yamamoto
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Title I ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal Funding ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Education Association ◽  
Education Act

The Federal Government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 to enable the federal government to finance public schools (Paige, 2004). This law was signed by President Johnson and has been revised every 5 years since then (Wisconsin Education Association Council, n.d.). ESEA started the provision of Title I funding, the federal money given to a school district to assist students who are falling behind academically (Public Schools of North Carolina, n.d.). President George W. Bush signed the ESEA, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) (P.L.107-110), on January 8, 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). This provision designated that total federal funding of $116,250 million was to be dispensed between 2002 and 2007. The Act was strongly supported by both parties: the final vote was 87 to 10 in the Senate and 381 to 41 in the House (Paige, 2004). This article will address the necessity for teacher training caused by the educational institution’s accountability imposed by No Child Left Behind, and the stronger need to assist disabled learners affirmed by the law.

scholarly journals Una perspectiva histórica de la educación bilingüe en Estados Unidos

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Mª Isabel García Garrido ◽  
Miguel Fernández Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Secondary Education ◽  
Bilingual Education ◽  
Benjamin Franklin ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Bilingual Education Act

El presente artículo presenta una revisión de la evolución de la educación bilingüe en los Estados Unidos. Así pues, presentamos una sinopsis de los principales movimientos que han estado en contra y a favor del bilingüismo.  El respeto por la diversidad cultural y lingüística empezó a verse comprometido a partir de 1750 cuando Benjamín Franklin llevó a cabo el primer intento de imponer el inglés como el lenguaje oficial de los Estados Unidos. La oposición más fuerte al bilingüismo vio la luz en 1983 a través de un movimiento conocido como U.S. English. En 1986 aparecería otro movimiento con las mismas intenciones que U.S. English, el llamado English First. No obstante, el bilingüismo también ha tenido sus defensores, tales como el movimiento llamado English Plus. A su vez, el futuro del bilingüismo también se ha visto protegido de forma legal a través de tres actas gubernamentales: (1) Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), (2) Bilingual Education Act of 1968, y (3) No Child Left Behind Act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document