1 / 15

No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind. By Rebekah Williams Educ 560 – Contemporary Issues Northwest Christian University May 8, 2013. Text of No Child Left Behind.

dana
Download Presentation

No Child Left Behind

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No ChildLeftBehind By Rebekah Williams Educ 560 – Contemporary Issues Northwest Christian University May 8, 2013

  2. Text of No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is a government program created to help disadvantaged students in the public schools across the nation. The NCLB Act “amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to revise Title I as Improving the Academic Performance of the Disadvantaged (currently Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards).” (Library of Congress, 2001)

  3. Historical ElementsHow far Back does it go? • Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • 1965 • ‘War on Poverty’ • Brown v. Board of Education • 1954 • “Separate but Equal”

  4. People And Their Contribution to the issue • Bill Clinton • ESEA • Not reauthorized • Law rolled over for extra year • George Bush • Signed NCLB into law • Effective 2002

  5. Terms to Know • Adequate Yearly Progress • Mandatory Testing • Proficiency

  6. Specific Data Analysis

  7. Benchmark Timelines100% Proficiency by the year 2013

  8. HOW DOES THIS EFFECT THE TEACHER • Student Achievement and Achievement Gaps • State Mandatory Testing • Title 1 Funding

  9. Important Factors • Test Based Accountability • Flexibility for Spending • More Choices for Students and Parents

  10. Nature of National Debate • Terms and Definitions • Adequate Yearly Progress • Proficiency • Identifying Schools for Improvement • Title 1 • Consequences for No Improvement

  11. Evidence of this do I see today • Education Major • Substitute • Full-Time Teacher

  12. What IS Significant Now? Educators want 100% proficiency to instead look at individual growth as the true definition of closing the achievement gap.

  13. What Impact might the Issue have in the future? • Widening Achievement Gaps • Eliminating Curriculum • Test Taking Abilities v. True Knowledge

  14. What Have I learned? • Educators, States, and Lawmakers have a common goal. • Everyone needs clear definitions. • Increasing proficiency is the true goal, even if 100% is looked at as an impossible goal.

  15. References • Choi, K., Seltzer, M., Herman, J., & Yamashiro, K. (2007). Children Left Behind in AYP and Non-AYP Schools: Using Student Progress and the Distribution of Student Gains to Validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 26(3), 21- 32.doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00098.x • Ed Gov. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/index.html • Education Week. No Child Left Behind. Research Center: Education Week. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/ • Forte, E. (2010). Examining the Assumptions Underlying the NCLB Federal Accountability Policy on School Improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88. doi:10.1080/00461521003704738 • Haretos, C. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Is The Definition of “Adequate Yearly Progress” Adequate?. Kennedy School Review, 629-46. • Library of Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00001:@@@D&summ2=0& • Linn, R. (2005). Conflicting Demands of No Child Left Behind and State Systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives 13 (33). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ846738.pdf • McReynolds, K. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act Raises Growing Concerns. Encounter, 19(2),33-36. • Murnane, R. J. & Papay, J. P. (2010). Teachers’ Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 24(3), 151-166. • Neill, M., Guisbond, L., & Schaeffer, B. (2004). Failing Our Children. Fair Test: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPRU-0405-62-OWI.pdf • OSPI: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/esea/NCLB.aspx • Perez-Pena, R. (2012). Waivers for 8 More States from “No Child Left Behind.” The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/education/eight-more-states-get-waiver-from-no-childlaw.html?ref=nochildleftbehindact • Rudalevige, A. (2003). The Politics of No Child Left Behind. Education Next. 3(4), 62-69. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20034_62.pdf

More Related