Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) established minimum qualifications for paraprofessionals employed in Title I, Part A-funded schools. Paraprofessionals in such schools who perform instructional duties were required to meet these qualifications by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. This report describes the act’s paraprofessional quality requirements and discusses their implementation and specification through guidance by the U.S. Department of Education. The report concludes with some issues that may arise as the 112th Congress considers reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
Date of Report: January 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22545
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), which authorized virtually all ESEA programs through FY2008. It is widely expected that the 112th Congress will consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA.
The NCLB initiated a major expansion of federal influence upon several aspects of public K-12 education, primarily with the aim of increasing the accountability of public school systems and individual public schools for improving achievement outcomes of all students, especially the disadvantaged. States must implement in all public schools and school districts a variety of standards-based assessments in reading, math and science; make complex annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for each public school and district; and require virtually all public school teachers and aides to meet a variety of qualification requirements. State AYP policies must incorporate an ultimate goal of all public school students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year. Further, participating states must enforce a series of increasingly substantial consequences for most of their schools and almost all school districts that fail to meet the AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. All of these requirements are associated with state participation in the ESEA Title I-A program.
Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs.
Date of Report: January 5, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL33960
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
One of the major goals of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is to raise the achievement of students who currently fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. Since student achievement is believed by many to depend in large part on effective teaching, the law also contains provisions designed to improve teacher quality. These provisions establish minimum teacher quality requirements and charge states and school districts with developing plans to meet them. These plans were to ensure that all schools had a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
To be deemed highly qualified, NCLB requires that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and a state teaching certificate, and that teachers also demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for their teaching level. Elementary school teachers must show knowledge of basic elementary school curricular areas. Middle and secondary school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in all subject areas taught. Demonstration of subject-matter knowledge and competency may be shown by passing a state certification exam or licensing test in the relevant subject(s).
This report examines implementation of the NCLB requirement and estimates the extent to which schools achieved the law’s goal of placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. After describing the highly qualified teacher requirement in detail, the report analyzes data from a national survey of schools that provide information on teacher qualifications during the 1999- 2000 school year. These data suggest that more than four out of five teachers would have met the NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher prior to the date of enactment. Monitoring data released by the Education Department indicate that the proportion of highly qualified teachers may have gone up slightly by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, but that no state reached the 100% goal.
In addition to the findings of this analysis, knowledge gained through NCLB’s implementation has important implications for future policy-making in the area of teacher quality. This report concludes with a discussion of issues that may be considered as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization process unfolds. The teacher quality provisions, along with the rest of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, will likely be considered for reauthorization by the 112th Congress. This report will be updated as significant legislative developments occur.
Date of Report: January 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL33333
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Erin D. Lomax
Analyst in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Two of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110; NCLB), are to improve the quality of K-12 teaching and raise the academic achievement of students who fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. In setting these goals, Congress recognized that reaching the second goal depends greatly on meeting the first; that is, quality teaching is critical to student success. Thus, NCLB established new standards for teacher qualifications and required that all courses in “core academic subjects” be taught by a highly qualified teacher by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
During implementation, the NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement came to be seen as setting minimum qualifications for entry into the profession and was criticized by some for establishing standards so low that nearly every teacher met the requirement. Meanwhile, policy makers have grown increasingly interested in the output of teachers’ work; that is, their performance in the classroom and the effectiveness of their instruction. Attempts to improve teacher performance led to federal and state efforts to incentivize improved performance through alternative compensation systems. For example, through P.L. 109-149, Congress authorized the Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, which provides grants to support teacher performance pay efforts. In addition, there are various programs at all levels (national, state, and local) aimed at reforming teacher compensation systems. The most recent congressional action in this area came with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and, in particular, enactment of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) recently released a final rule of priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the RTTT. The final rule established a definition of an effective teacher as one “whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice).” That is, to be considered effective, teachers must raise their students’ learning to a level at or above what is expected within a typical school year. States, LEAs, and schools must include additional measures to evaluate teachers; however, these evaluations must be based, “in significant part, [on] student growth.”
This report addresses issues associated with the evaluation of teacher effectiveness based on student growth in achievement. It focuses specifically on a method of evaluation referred to as value-added modeling (VAM). Although there are other methods for assessing teacher effectiveness, in the last decade, VAM has garnered increasing attention in education research and policy due to its promise as a more objective method of evaluation. The first section of this report describes what constitutes a VAM approach and how it estimates the so-called “teacher effect.” The second section identifies the components necessary to conduct VAM in education settings. Third, the report discusses current applications of VAM at the state and school district levels and what the research on these applications says about this method of evaluation. The fourth section of the report explains some of the implications these applications have for large-scale implementation of VAM. Finally, the report describes some of the federal policy options that might arise as Congress considers legislative action around these or related issues.
Date of Report: January 5, 2011
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41051
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Erin D. Lomax
Analyst in Education Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by NCLB, schools are now held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities. The authorization for NCLB expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. One focus of reauthorization may be reexamining how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems.
The current NCLB focus on accountability for the achievement of students with disabilities has led educators, administrators, and policymakers to reexamine the appropriateness of the general state assessment for measuring the achievement of certain students with disabilities. Although many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessment, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature and severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs and allows them to more accurately demonstrate what they know and can do.
There are currently five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities: (1) general state assessment, (2) general state assessment with accommodations, (3) alternate assessment based on grade-level standards, (4) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and (5) alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). The first three assessment options (general state assessment, general state assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment based on grade-level standards) result in scores that may be counted in AYP calculations in the typical manner, as determined by a state’s accountability system. Scores from the second two assessment options (AA-AAS and AAMAS) have restrictions on the way they may be counted in AYP calculations. These restrictions are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and have numerous implications for state accountability systems.
The purpose of this report is to describe the ED regulations that allow states to use scores from alternate assessments for AYP calculations in accountability systems. This report also describes the current status of state implementation of alternate assessments and examines some of the challenges states have encountered in developing and implementing these assessments. The final section of this report discusses other policy proposals for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities and including them in accountability systems.
Date of Report: January 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R40701
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
