Sizing Up the Opportunities

Service-Learning and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Shelley H. Billig, Ph.D

RMC Research, Denver CO

The Act

No Child Left Behind reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA)

Provides about 5% of all education funds in the U.S.

Embeds a 12 year lifespan though will be revisited legislatively in 2006.

NCLB Emphases

Accountability Increased academic achievement Standards Scientifically based evidence of

success Accountability!!

Title I Part A

Part A: Funds for economically disadvantaged youth;

Service-learning is an allowable use of funds IF it is linked to academic achievement.

Example: Georgia– Issues: territoriality and “making the case”.

Title I Part C

Funds for migrant education: can be used for program delivery during the school year or summer school;

Example: Colorado Issues: lack of awareness, entry/exit of

students.

Title I: Part H

Part H: School Dropout Prevention – allows counseling and mentoring for at-risk students. Schools can implement service-learning programs that include tutoring, peer counseling, cooperative learning, and other similar approaches.

Example: Kansas Issues: student voice, teacher training, and

transportation.

Title III

Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students—eligible entities may receive funds for “implementing applied learning activities such as service-learning”;

Example: Texas Issues: state policies surrounding ELL

Title IV

21st Century Schools programs – may use funds for service-learning or community service to rebuild safe and healthy neighborhoods and increase students’ sense of responsibility;

Safe and Drug Free Schools – may be used to prevent risk behaviors;– May use funds for mentoring, including programs that

include service and service-learningExamples: Texas, California, Nebraska, UtahIssues: competitive funding; need for data

Title V

Innovative programs– may include community service programs and service-learning activities;

Character Education programs– service-learning in use in NY, PA, CA, others;

Gifted and Talented programs - establish and operate model projects and exemplary programs including service-learning.

Examples: New York; Pennsylvania Issues: evaluation; sparse funding.

Title VII

Funds for Indian, Native Hawaiian, Native Alaskan Education – for mentoring, training, and apprenticeship programs that may include service-learning.

Examples: Hawaii; Montana Issues: professional development

Profile of Linkages Between Service-Learning and NCLB Programs

7

2 2

14

32

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Title I Title IC Title III Title IV Title V Title VII All federalprograms

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tate

s

NCLB Coordinators’ Familiarity with Service-Learning (Those with Linked Programs in the State)

85%

15%

Familiar

Not very familiar

Title Coordinators’ Views of SL

63%

22%

5%

5% 5%

Academic, civic, andsocial-emotional outcomespromoted

Academic and civicoutcomes promoted

Academic and social-emotional outcomespromoted

Civic and social emotionaloutcomes promoted

Civic outcomes promoted

State Policy Supports for SL

22%

14%

62%

2%

Strong support

Moderate support

No support

Don't know

District Funding for Service-Learning: Average Across States

17%

64%

17%2%

Most districts

Some districts

None

Don't know

NCLB Challenges

Accountability: how coordinators define this will open or limit opportunities for service-learning;

Scientifically-based evidence of success is needed – either academic success or reduction of risk or other valued outcomes;

Quality counts; Relationships count.

Challenges Reveal by SL Survey Respondents

Funding; Emphasis on standards and testing; Lack of time; Lack of conceptual understanding;

and Lack of or conflicting state policies.

Keys to Success

Must be “best” or “promising” practice – eventually meet criteria for scientifically-based best practice.

Can be used to fund professional development, if linked to Title program.

Can be used to fund coordinators, materials, transportation if linked to program design and goals.

Survey Respondents: Facilitators of Progress

Financial support; State “culture of service”; Strong community partnerships; Professional development opportunities

and understanding of service-learning among administrators and teachers;

Individual district or school champions;

Facilitators of Progress (continued)

Link to content standards; State-supplied tangible resources such as

curriculum projects; Strong state level team familiar with

service-learning; State conferences with sl presentations;

and Ability to show “legal” links.

Training Needs

Learning about best practices for high quality service-learning specifically for academic achievement;

Learning about how to use service-learning for specific Title purposes;

Developing strategies to help coordinators become aware;

Evaluation appropriate to Title programs; and

Information on outcomes.

What Next?

Awareness needs; Motivation to adopt; Implementing best practices; Evaluation.

– Tools are available;– Professional development is available;– Data are available…Advocacy and a strategic plan are needed.

Resources

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse - www.nslc.org;

National Service-Learning Partnership - www.nslp.org;

Corporation for National and Community Service – www.cncs.org;

National Youth Leadership Council - www.nylc.org;

Many more….