scholarly journals Adequate Yearly Progress in Small Rural Schools and Rural Low-Income Schools

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Farmer ◽  
Man-Chi Leung ◽  
Jonathan Banks ◽  
Victoria Schaefer ◽  
Bruce Andrews ◽  
...  

Adequate yearly progress (AYP) on No Child Left Behind criteria was examined for a randomly selected sample of districts that qualify for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP). The sample involved 10% of districts that were eligible for the Small Rural Schools Achievement (SRSA) program and 10% that were eligible for the Rural and Low-income Schools (RLIS) program. Based on district reports, nearly 80% of SRSA schools made AYP, 11% failed, and 11% did not have adequate data. For schools in the RLIS program, districts reported that 65% made AYP, 29% failed, and 6% did not report adequate data. The SRSA and RLIS samples had different patterns for the categories of students that did not make AYP. Also, SRSA and RLIS districts were differentially distributed across the United States. Implications for interventions are discussed.  

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret J. Mclaughlin ◽  
Sandra Embler ◽  
Glenda Hernandez ◽  
Elizabeth Caron

The recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act (2001) places unprecedented pressure on schools to raise the academic achievement of all students. Through annual testing of students, schools are to use the results of these assessments to demonstrate that they are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The provisions in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) apply to all states, districts, and schools equally, regardless of size or location. There are concerns, however, about applying the law's provisions in rural schools. Specifically, concerns surround the measurement of adequate yearly progress. In many rural schools, the number of students is small and this is especially true when disaggregating results for subgroups. The current study investigated the implementation of accountability reforms in rural schools and sought to identify schools that were experiencing better than expected results for students, especially students with disabilities. Findings indicate that validly measuring AYP in small rural schools is especially problematic given the small number of students in the subgroup, volatility in year to year scores, and changes in service delivery policies. Implications for accountability and policy are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaret Hodges

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has defined the past 15 years of public K-12 education. An incentive structure built around adequate yearly progress created an environment that was not aligned with gifted education. Texas, with over 11% of the total identified gifted population in the United States, state funding for gifted, and incentivized identification policies, made an ideal case study to analyze the ramifications of NCLB on gifted education. This article explores how Texas responded to NCLB and that response’s influence on district-level funding for gifted education. In total, 16 years of financial and enrollment data were analyzed for the 1,025 public school districts in Texas using the frame work of a longitudinal mixed model. Results indicated that there was an annual decline in the percentage of budget allocated to gifted education of 0.04 percentage points for rural school districts, 0.08 for suburban, 0.07 for town, and 0.05 for urban.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale Ballou ◽  
Matthew G. Springer

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has been criticized for encouraging schools to neglect students whose performance exceeds the proficiency threshold or lies so far below it that there is no reasonable prospect of closing the gap during the current year. We examine this hypothesis using longitudinal data from 2002–03 through 2005–06. Our identification strategy relies on the fact that as NCLB was phased in, states had some latitude in designating which grades were to count for purposes of a school making adequate yearly progress. We compare the mathematics achievement distribution in a grade before and after it became a high-stakes grade. We find in general no evidence that gains were concentrated on students near the proficiency standard at the expense of students scoring much lower, though there are inconsistent signs of a trade-off with students at the upper end of the distribution.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.J. Dougherty ◽  
C. Pleasants ◽  
L. Solow ◽  
A. Wong ◽  
H. Zhang

Science education in the United States will increasingly be driven by testing and accountability requirements, such as those mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act, which rely heavily on learning outcomes, or “standards,” that are currently developed on a state-by-state basis. Those standards, in turn, drive curriculum and instruction. Given the importance of standards to teaching and learning, we investigated the quality of life sciences/biology standards with respect to genetics for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, using core concepts developed by the American Society of Human Genetics as normative benchmarks. Our results indicate that the states’ genetics standards, in general, are poor, with more than 85% of the states receiving overall scores of Inadequate. In particular, the standards in virtually every state have failed to keep pace with changes in the discipline as it has become genomic in scope, omitting concepts related to genetic complexity, the importance of environment to phenotypic variation, differential gene expression, and the differences between inherited and somatic genetic disease. Clearer, more comprehensive genetics standards are likely to benefit genetics instruction and learning, help prepare future genetics researchers, and contribute to the genetic literacy of the U.S. citizenry.


2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (12) ◽  
pp. 3102-3138
Author(s):  
A. Lin Goodwin

Background/Context The United States is currently undergoing a period of unprecedented immigration, with the majority of new arrivals coming from Asia and Latin America, not Europe. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (APIs) represent the fastest growing racial group in the United States, and schools are again being asked to socialize newcomer students, many of whom are APIs. Yet, even as the United States becomes more racially diverse, the national mindset regarding immigrants and immigration ranges from ambivalent to increasingly (and currently) hostile, and is often contradictory. “American” typically is imagined as “White,” and perceptions of APIs and people of color as “other” remain cemented in our collective psyche. It is this sociohistorical-political context that frames the education and socialization of Asian American citizens, immigrants, and their children. Objective/Focus As APIs are absorbed into the fabric of society, how will they define themselves? How will they be defined? This article begins by deconstructing the social category Asian and Pacific Islander in order to reveal the immense diversity contained under this label. The discussion illuminates both the horizontal diversity of APIs—differences between ethnic groups, and vertical diversity—differences within ethnic groups, to underscore the insufficiency of the API label. Against the diverse backdrop that APIs truly (re)present, (Asian) American education framed by three curricular contexts in the United States—the major reforms of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, culturally relevant pedagogy, and the “model minority” mythology—is theorized using postcolonial theory as an analytic lens. The article concludes with thoughts on how APIs can resist domination and what might be sites of resistance in schools or society. Research Design This is an analytic essay that examines both historical and contemporary educational and policy contexts. Conclusions/Recommendations Curriculum, defined not simply as subject matter content and instructional procedures, but as a tool of acculturation and a depository of (U.S.) national and cultural values, has the power to emancipate or colonize. Each of the three curricular contexts in the United States—the major reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act, culturally relevant pedagogy, and the “model minority” mythology—exemplify the role Curriculum plays in defining, silencing, and/or marginalizing APIs. Imagined sites of resistance against Curriculum as colonizer include this very page, where one voice deliberately pushes back against the obfuscation of fixed realities layered onto people of Asian descent in the United States, the reexamination and revision(ing) of teacher preparation curricula, and the larger policy arena.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Convertino ◽  
Amy Brown ◽  
Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson

Educational policies across the globe reflect the ascendancy of neoliberalism. According to neoliberalism, the market represents a superior mechanism to govern ( Peters, 2012 ), and thus, the role of the state is to enable the agency of the market ( Rose, 1999 ). In the United States, the federal report A Nation at Risk (1983) formalized the direct influence of a neoliberal rationality on the formation of educational policies. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001) and The Race to the Top (2010) represent successive assertions of market values on educational reform. At the same time, there is a fundamental contradiction within neoliberal logic: while the state is to refrain from interfering in the market, it must simultaneously intervene to govern schools ( Hursh, 2005 ). Based on these trends, the articles in this special issue highlight critical tensions between public versus private values, practices, and discourses that emerge from the proliferation of a neoliberal logic into the educational sphere. In different ways, each of these articles map out a unique facet of neoliberalism in education to complicate the often totalizing critiques of market-based logics in order to demonstrate the complex ways that people rearticulate and resist education policy in an era of neoliberal ascendancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document