1 / 16

The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act:

The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act: . An Exploration of the Standardized Test Scores of Special and General Education Student Populations. Amber Baumann December 13 th , 2011. Presentation. Introduction Review of relevant literature Discussion of research problem and questions

dawson
Download Presentation

The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act:

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act: An Exploration of the Standardized Test Scores of Special and General Education Student Populations Amber Baumann December 13th, 2011

  2. Presentation • Introduction • Review of relevant literature • Discussion of research problem and questions • Research design • Timeline • Questions?

  3. The No Child Left Behind Act • Enacted in 2002 as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Provisions include the requirement of “highly qualified” teachers and that each state set “one high, challenging standard” for students • Requires statewide standardized testing of all schools receiving federal funding • Schools are assigned Annual Yearly Progress scores that are used to determine future funding

  4. Relevant Literature • Is NCLB effective? • Caillier (2007)- Between 2004 and 2006 only two states met NCLB goals • Fuller, et. al. (2007) Some states have lowered standards since NCLB’s enactment • Balfanz, et. al. (2007)- NCLB standards deem some improving schools as inadequate (esp. those with larger percentages of disadvantaged students)

  5. Relevant Literature • Standardized Testing and Special Education Populations • Au (2007)- Special Education Students have learning needs not catered to in general education classrooms • Cawthon (2007)- NCLB components unevenly applied to students with diverse backgrounds

  6. Relevant Literature • Negative Consequences • Roderik and Nagoaka (2005)- Students who fear consequences develop negative test-taking strategies • Lomax, et. al. (1995)- Low test scores track students into classrooms with limited ranges of instruction; leads to lower test scores • Orlich (2004)- Schools often fail to meet AYP scores due to test scores of subgroups (special education, low income, English language learners)

  7. Research Problem • Given what we know about the No Child Left Behind Act, its dependence on standardized testing as a measurement of academic progress, and the potential consequences for schools who fail to meet the set standards, are there statistically significant differences in special education and general education academic progress rates (as judged by standardized testing) since the inception of NCLB that can have negative consequences for schools?

  8. Research Questions • Is the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act associated with improved test scores in special education populations? • Are there significant differences in improvement of special education standardized test scores compared with those of general education populations? • Is a lower percentage of special education students within a county associated with higher standardized test scores for the county as a whole?

  9. Hypotheses • NCLB interventions will have little effect on special education test scores • There will be a statistically significant difference in the improvement of standardized test scores of special education and general education populations since the implementation of NCLB • Counties with low percentages of special education students will be associated with higher standardized test scores for the county as a whole

  10. Research Design • Longitudinal study that uses cross sectional data • Study will include ninth grade English-Language Arts and Mathematics test scores from each year from 2000 to 2010 • Study will examine the change of both general and special education students’ test scores over time • Second part of the study will look at the percentage of special education students within each county

  11. Operationalization of Variables • Dependent variables are the average test scores of the students in each county • Independent variables • Students’ classification as special education or general education student • Counties’ classification as having a low (10% and below), medium (11-20%), or high (21% and over) percentage of special education students

  12. Source of Data • California Department of Education • Standardized testing records from each school, district, and county for each grade (K-12) each year • Study will use each of 58 counties’ average test scores for both English-Language Arts and Mathematics for ninth graders for each year from 2000 to 2010

  13. Method • Data will be analyzed quantitatively, comparing percentages of improvement for both special education and general education mean standardized scores for each year over the time frame • Regression analysis will be used to determine correlation between percentage of a county’s special education population and its mean standardized test score

  14. Timeline January 2012 Collect secondary data from California Department of Education website February 2012 Clean up data March 2012 Enter data into SPSS, run quantitative analysis April 2012 Analyze findings May 2012 Present research findings

  15. References • Au, W. (2007, June-July). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 5, 258-267. • Balfanz, R., Legters, N., West, T. C., & Weber, L. M. (2007, September). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right one’s for the nation’s low-performing high schools? American Educational Research Journal, 44, 3, 559-593. • Caillier, J. G. (2007). The No Child Left Behind Act: "Are states on target to make their goals?” The Journal of Negro Education,76, 4, 582-596. • Cawthon, S. W. (2007, September). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind policies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Educational Research Journal, 44, 3, 460-492. • Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007, June-July). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36, 5, 268-278.

  16. References • Lomax, R. G., Maxwell West, M., Harmon, M. C., Viator, K. A., & Madaus, G. F. (1995). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. The Journal of Negro Education, 64, 2, 171-185. • Orlich, D. C. (2004, September-October). No Child Left Behind: An illogical accountability model. The Clearing House, 78, 1, 6-11. • Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011) Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. • Richardson, J. G., & Parker, T. L. (1993, August). The institutional genesis of special education: The American case. American Journal of Education, 101, 4, 359-392. • Roderick, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s high-stakes testing program: helpful, harmful, or harmless? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 4, 309-340. • Skidmore, D. (1999, March). Continuities and developments in research into the education of pupils with learning difficulties. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, 1, 3-16.

More Related