1

No Child Left BehindCritical Research Findings

For School Boards

Ronald Dietel

UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)

December 2, 2005 California School Boards

AssociationSan Diego, CA

2

NCLB Overview-Part 1

Annual state testing in language arts and mathematics, grades 3-8 plus one grade in high school. By 2007-08, science must be tested in one grade each in elementary, middle, and high school.

95% participation rates of each subgroup

Mandatory state NAEP participation (every two years in math and reading)

Adequate Yearly Progress, includes subgroups meeting minimum group size by race, disadvantaged, English language learners, and special education students

State flexibility, may use their own standards and tests, flexible minimum subgroup size, many different AYP variations have been approved

3

NCLB Overview-Part 2

Sanctions

Failure to meet AYP for two years requires supplemental educational services such as tutoring or transfer to other district school

Failure a third year requires stronger corrective action such as removing staff, implementing new curriculum, outside experts, restructuring

A School is removed from a “needs improvement list” if it makes AYP for two consecutive years

Only Title 1 schools subject to sanctions

Political Atmosphere

States had responded slowly to earlier ESEA laws

NCLB had strong bipartisan support, Senate approved 87-10; House 381-41

Virtually no research conducted to determine feasibility of NCLB goals

4

California’s NCLB Overview

AYP Criteria defined in August 2005 CDE NCLB Workbook

A school or LEA may need to meet 46 different criteria in order to make AYP.

Primary performance measure is the California Standards Test; API is an additional measure as well as the high school graduation rate.

California selected a path designed to identify the fewest number of schools and districts in need of improvement while minimizing changes to the current STAR accountability system.

5

California’s Backloaded AYP Trajectory English-Language Arts

Source-CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

6

California’s Backloaded AYP TrajectoryMathematics

Source-CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

7

California’s Backloaded AYP TrajectoryGraduation Rate

Source-CDE 2005 Accountability Progress Report

8

California Makes Decisions to Minimize Schools in Need of Improvement

Minimum of 100 valid test scores for subgroups

Backloaded trajectory

Confidence Intervals (applies a 75% confidence interval to safe harbor provision).

9

Critical Research Findings

State standards, tests, and achievement levels are not comparable

Teachers adjust their approach according to what is assessed

Scores are usually low on new state tests. As districts and teachers adjust instruction, scores improve, but eventually level off

Schools usually focus on the test more so than on the standards

What is not tested becomes less visible, social studies, the arts, etc.

Tests are not perfect and are oftentimes used improperly

Reliability decreases with fewer numbers of students

Classroom assessment and grading practices are uneven and often of low quality

10

Tests Drive Teaching…

Source-Herman and Golan

CRESST Report 334

Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachersand Learning—Another Look

11

Tests Drive Instruction…

Source-Herman and Golan

CRESST Report 334

Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachersand Learning—Another Look

12

But, Tests Do Not Necessarily Increase Learning

California Performance on the

2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress

Source-Education Trust-West

Grade & Subject California ranking-All 50 states+DC

4th Grade Math 44

8th Grade Math 44

4th Grade Reading 48

8th Grade Reading 49

13

Despite 8 years of STAR & 4 Years of NCLB Long Term California NAEP Performance is Flat

NAEP MathematicsPercent Proficient or Advanced

1998 2002 2003 2005

Grade 4 Nation 28 30 30 30

Grade 4 California 20 21 21 21

Grade 8 Nation 30 31 30 29

Grade 8 California 21 20 22 21

14

100% Proficiency is Unrealistic Goal

2005 California Standards TestPercent Students Proficient or Above

Student Type

6th grade Reading

6th grade math

7th grade reading

7th grade math

Lower All students

22 25 28 26

Performing

School

ELL 5 13 6 13

Special needs

4 2 4 4

Very High

Performing

School

All students

83 87 91 89

ELL 46 85 25 42

Special needs

42 44 47 41

15

Other Measures Support NAEP Results

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005All Students, Reading

39 39 40

45 45 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

16

Small or No Improvement

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005All Students, Math

55 56 57

45 4648

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

17

ELL Performance is Flat in Reading

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005English Language Learners, Reading

22 2224

18 17 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

18

ELL Performance in Math is Flat or Declining

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005 English Language Learners, Math

40 40

26

21 21 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

19

Special Needs Reading Performance

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005 Special Needs Students, Reading

21 20 20

15 15 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

20

Special Needs Mathematics Performance

California's CAT/6 Results 2003-2005 Special Needs Students, Math

29 2931

14 15 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005

Year

Percentile Rank

3rd Grade

7th Grade

21

Other States and Districts Are Not on Target to Reach 100% Proficiency

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, 10th Grade Language Arts

22

Other Important Things to Know

States are working with the U.S. Department of Education to delay NCLB consequences to schools

ESEA is scheduled for reauthorization in 2007

23

What Your School District and Board Can Do

Focus On Teachers and Teaching

24

What Else Your School District and Board Can Do

Be realistic about test scores gains and the feasibility of all schools and all subgroups making AYP

Develop quality district assessments

Improve student assignments and grading practices

Make improved data use a key goal, provide resources to make it happen

Work cooperatively as a board, superintendent, and district

25

Resources

Your Own District Staff

EdSource -- www.edsource.org

CRESST.org -- National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing

WestEd.org -- Regional laboratory and future home of the new “Accountability and Assessment Comprehensive Center”