|
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) We are committed to generating and synthesizing research on key civil rights and equal opportunity policies that have been neglected or overlooked. Changing NCLB District Accountability Standards: Implications for Racial Equity Christopher Tracey, Gail Sunderman and Gary Orfield. June 24, 2005 This study examines the implications of a shift in accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) from the school level to the district level. Most states are identifying school districts for sanctioning for the first time during the 2004-2005 school year. Large numbers of districts have been labeled under-performing, and these districts face potentially severe sanctions in the years to come. The heightened importance of district accountability means that it is important to examine both the efficacy of NCLB’s method for identifying districts for sanctioning it effect on the low-income and minority students
Teacher Quality: Equalizing Educational Opportunities and Outcomes Gail Sunderman and Jimmy Kim. May 5, 2005 The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) teacher quality provisions recognize both the importance of teacher quality for improving student achievement and the unequal distribution of teachers across districts and schools. But the question of how to achieve the goal of a high quality teacher in every classroom is complicated because of the challenges of attracting and retaining teachers to schools serving large numbers of minority and low-income students, the schools most likely to have the least qualified teachers.
Limited English Proficient Students: Increased Accountability Under NCLB Laura Batt, Jimmy Kim and Gail Sunderman. February 1, 2005 On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) into law and thus initiated “the most sweeping change in [federal] education policy in three decades” (Malico & Langan, 2003). NCLB requires schools, districts, and states to collect an unprecedented amount of data on the achievement of public school students in the U.S., a move praised by some for encouraging accountability at all levels and higher standards for all students. However, the law has also faced resistance from many policymakers and practitioners who find several of its mandates unrealistic. Some have argued that the law’s requirement that all students in grades three through eight achieve proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014 is unfair and in some cases impossible.
Listening to Teachers: Classroom Realities and No Child Left Behind Gail L. Sunderman, Christopher A. Tracey, Jimmy Kim and Gary Orfield. September 7, 2004 No Child Left Behind: The Teachers’ Voice survey grew out of our national study on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is examining many aspects of NCLB implementation in six states and eleven school districts. Since there is much in NCLB that is aimed at teachers, we wanted to know what teachers think about the law and how they, and their schools, are responding to its strategies for change.
Large Mandates and Limited Resources: State Response to the No Child Left Behind Act and Implications for Accountability Jimmy Kim and Gail Sunderman. February 9, 2004 This report examines how state policymakers designed their accountability systems to meet the NCLB Title I requirements and the implications of its provisions for schools with large numbers of low-income and minority students. We conducted our study in six states—Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Virginia, and Georgia—which are geographically, politically, and demographically diverse. First, we examine how these six states designed their accountability systems to meet the Title I accountability requirements, including the interaction of the federal requirements and state accountability systems. Second, we examine the effect of the Title I adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements on high-poverty and high-minority schools in these six states. Third, we explore the impact of subgroup accountability rules in California’s public schools. We focus our subgroup analysis on California, since it is the state with the most ethnically and socially diverse public schools.
|
Back