Sizing Up the Opportunities

1. Sizing Up the Opportunities Service-Learning and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Shelley H. Billig, Ph.D RMC Research, Denver CO

2. 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.

3. NCLB Emphases • Accountability • Increased academic achievement • Standards • Scientifically based evidence of success • Accountability!!

4. 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”.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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-learning Examples: Texas, California, Nebraska, Utah Issues: competitive funding; need for data

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Profile of Linkages Between Service-Learning and NCLB Programs

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

13. Title Coordinators’ Views of SL

14. State Policy Supports for SL

15. District Funding for Service-Learning: Average Across States

16. 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.

17. Challenges Reveal by SL Survey Respondents • Funding; • Emphasis onstandards and testing; • Lack of time; • Lack of conceptual understanding; and • Lack of or conflicting state policies.

18. 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.

19. 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;

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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….