sixth annual education conference no school left behind n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind. Michigan Department of Education Tom Watkins, State Superintendent Kathleen Straus, Board President 4.1.2003. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Accountability Flexibility Choice Research. Accountability.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind' - sorena

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
sixth annual education conference no school left behind

Sixth Annual Education Conference, No School Left Behind

Michigan Department of Education

Tom Watkins, State Superintendent

Kathleen Straus, Board President


no child left behind act of 2001
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
  • Accountability
  • Flexibility
  • Choice
  • Research
  • There is a substantial increase in the testing requirement for states and a charge to set demanding accountability standards for schools, districts and states with measurable adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives for all students and subgroups of students.
nclb final regulations
NCLB Final Regulations
  • State has the responsibility for developing challenging academic standards.
    • Academic content standards in reading/language arts and math.
      • Content expectations per grade level.
    • Academic achievement standards for each grade and subject assessed.
      • Two levels of high achievement-proficient & advance
      • A third level of achievement basic
        • Michigan has a four level-apprentice
nclb final regulations1
NCLB Final Regulations
  • Science
    • Achievement levels and descriptions of those levels by 2005-06
    • Assessment scores (cut scores) for achievement levels by 2007-08
what are academic standards
What are Academic Standards
  • Statements of expectations for student learning and achievement. Academic standards are composed of both academic content standards and student academic achievement standards.
  • The mandated target is 100% proficient within 12 years.







definition of proficient
Definition of Proficient
  • According to Public Law 107-110 of January 8, 2002, Section 1111(b)(2)(g)(iii) each State is to determine the proficiency level on a State’s assessment tests in Reading and Mathematics, measured separately, that students are expected to meet or exceed, applied separately to the following subgroups:
    • • Economically disadvantaged students.
    • • Students from major racial and ethnic groups.
    • • Students with disabilities.
    • • Students with limited English proficiency.
  • The Michigan educational assessment program tests currently classify students in the following score categories:
    • Level 1 – exceeds expectations
    • Level 2 – meets expectations
    • Level 3 – basic
    • Level 4 – below basic or apprentice
  • Students at levels 1 and 2 are considered in the MEAP program to have demonstrated


  • It is therefore proposed that “proficiency” for the state of Michigan be defined as students scoring in level 1 (“exceeds expectations”) or level 2 (“meets expectations”) on the Michigan educational assessment program tests.
how did we get here
How Did We Get Here?
  • Phase I
    • Conducted a document review of existing grade-level curricula and instructional programs.
      • Resources form other states and national companies or organization.
    • All material were evaluated for topical congruence
    • Findings were reviewed with educators at six sites
  • Phase II
    • Feedback was incorporated into second draft
      • Posted on public web site – Approx. 47,000 hits
      • Analyses performed by MSU and others
  • Phase III Final Draft
today s situation
Today’s Situation
  • State Board received the report on the Grade Level Content Expectations
    • Inclusive of recommendations from analyses
  • Additional issues & concerns
  • Need to revise the Grade Level Instructional Guides
    • Consistency
    • Format


  • English Language Arts
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Science
  • Arts Education
  • -------------------
  • Life Management
  • Career & Employability
  • Physical Ed.
  • World Languages
  • Health Ed.
  • Technology




Grade Level Instructional Guides

Grade Level Content Expectations

next steps
Next steps
  • Revise Michigan Curriculum Framework
    • Learning Standards
    • Grade Level Instructional Guides
    • Comprehensive document
    • Seeking input from educators, LEAs, parents, ISDs, higher institutions, community, and organizations.
contact information
Contact information
  • Sue Carnell