Educational Reform Week 5 Collaborative Learning Community Assignment: Educational Reform Evaluation

Educational Reform Evaluation Christie Aleman, Brian Conary, Brandon Holiday, Aquila Muhammad, David Stone Grand Canyon University EDA 530 October 5, 2008

Educational Reform Educational Reform Evaluation (What do you guys think about this intro???) Introduction

Educational reform is a plan which attempts to bring about changes in educational theory in a community or society. The educational reform changes started back in 1983 when a report called A Nation at Risk was published (Carvin). In this report, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated that although, we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the wellbeing of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people (U.S. Department of Education). People immediately started to look at education and how they we were going to change this. Since then, the nation has been under an educational reform, making sure that each presidential election year the candidates focus some of their time discussing how they feel that we can improve our schools. In an effort to create an evaluation of educational reform methodologies, we will take a closer look at some of the ways our past and current presidents have decided to change education. The policies that will be of focus are Goals 2000 which was signed by President Clinton in 1994 and The No Child Left Behind, which is currently in progress, signed in 2002 by President Bush. Both of these plans have differences and similarities which have impacted schools across the United States. Goals 2000 In 1994, all over the United States, in small towns and cities, state by state, educators and parents were reclaiming the responsibility for our childrens future by initiating a host of educational reforms. Each day more and more people joined the ranks of folks who recognized

Educational Reform that the current system was not serving the interest of their children or the children of their communities. People understood that action had to be taken in order to change the situation. However, the beginning of the new millennium was the target date set for boys and girls in the

United States to exceed the achievement levels of all other nations to improve their performance in core subjects, but this did not happen to the extent anticipated. It was not until 1994 that President Clinton signed into law the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, making the six goals, and two additional ones national policy. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act helped states and communities realize the national commitment to improving education and ensuring that all children reach high academic standards. It prompted states and districts to plan strategically for and realize school change was a necessity. By initiating, supporting, and sustaining coordinated school reform planning and implementation, Goals 2000 focused improvement efforts on high expectations and achievement results for all students. President William Jefferson Clinton and the nations governors paved the pathway for Goals 2000 in 1989 during an Education Summit in Virginia (Austin, n.d.). The act focused on the needs of all children rather than only on those who were disadvantaged (Harcourt, 2003). Together, the congressmen placed into law eight educational goals focusing on school readiness, graduation, academic achievement, math and science, literacy, and safe, drug-free schools (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory [NCREL], 1999). These goals are listed in Table 1 (Austin, n.d.). Table 1 Goals 2000 By the year 2000: Every child will start school ready to learn. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, art, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be

1. 2. 3.

Educational Reform prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nations modern economy. The nations teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievements. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. By 1999, some progress had been made in the eight areas addressed by Goals 2000.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

According to Cromwell (1999), the nation had made excellent progress towards school readiness. Infants were facing less health risks, the percentage of fully immunized 2 year-olds had increased, and the percentage of families reading and telling stories to their children regularly had also increased (Cromwell, 1999). Slight progress was made in high school graduation rates with nine states showing improvement and fifteen meeting the 90 percent or higher mark (Cromwell, 1999). Student proficiency in math at grades 4, 8, and 12 showed improvement while the percentage of those proficient in reading at grade 12 had declined along with little improvement in grades 4 and 8 (Cromwell, 1999). Goal four, teacher education and professional development, revealed disheartening information. Numbers were decreasing at the secondary level when examining which teachers held degrees in the subject areas they taught. However, there was significant progress made in the number of states offering formal induction/mentoring programs to new teachers (Cromwell, 1999). The goal towards strengthening math and science achieved some success with a rise in the proportion of college degrees earned in these areas (Cromwell, 1999). Adult literacy declined and the gap between the percentages of white and black high school graduates who complete a college degree has gown larger (Cromwell, 1999). Goal seven, safe and drug-free schools, also offered disappointing results. Drug use was reportedly more common, the number of public school

Educational Reform educators reporting threats or injury at school had increased, and secondary teacher reported more disruptions that interrupted their instruction (Cromwell, 1999). The final goal, parental participation, was found to be at high levels in five states (Cromwell, 1999). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) In addition to Goals 2000, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was designed in 2001 to improve and /or increase student achievement nationwide. According to NCLB, by 2013-14 every child would be performing at a proficient level in reading, math, and science. The more

recent NCLB Act was passed in 2001 and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. NCLB is currently due for reauthorization. No Child Left Behind focuses on four areas in education: 1) teacher quality, 2) student testing, 3) scientifically based research, and 4) public school choice (Harcourt, 2003). Under NCLB teachers are required to be highly qualified. There are three criteria that must be met in order to satisfy the highly qualified requirement: 1) fulfill state certification and licensing requirements, 2) obtain at a minimum a bachelors degree, and 3) demonstrate subject matter expertise (Wikipedia, 2008). Student assessment that allows for tracking of student growth is required. The purpose of this requirement was to bring about reform through public accountability for individual student learning (Harcourt, 2003, p. 6). The student assessments are required annually for grade 3-8 as well as at least once during high school (Wikipedia, 2008). There is no national assessment test that is required, but may be in any form chosen by the state. Assessments are, however, directly linked to school funding. Schools must also demonstrate growth of disadvantaged children through the Annual Yearly Progress, or AYP, report (Harcourt, 2003). Scientifically based research applies to both classroom strategies and professional development. To meet the criteria set forth, research must involve large quantitative studies

Educational Reform using control groups as opposed to partially or entirely qualitative or ethnographic studies (Wikipedia, 2008). The NCLB definition of scientifically base research is found in Table 2 (Wikipedia, 2008).

Table 2 Scientifically Based Research is research that: Applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; Uses systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. Finally, public school choice was included in order to give parents and students the

choice to move from failing schools to schools with higher levels of success. Schools, which do not meet AYP in two consecutive years, are required to offer supplemental educational services that may occur outside the school day or transfers to a more successful school for eligible students (Harcourt, 2003). NCLB has also had its share of successes and less than favorable results. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, reveals that from 2002-2007 very little progress has been made in the number of fourth graders who are proficient or above in reading. In addition, the number of eight graders proficient in reading has showed a slight but steady decline (Ed.gov, 2008). The news regarding mathematics is much more promising. Both fourth and eighth graders are showing steady improvement (Ed.gov, 2008). Seventy percent of the nations schools are making AYP, while more than ten thousand are in need of improvement and just over two thousand are in the restructuring phase (Ed.gov, 2008). The percentages of schools, both low and high poverty as well as elementary and secondary, have 90 percent or more of their

Educational Reform teachers meeting the criteria of highly qualified (Ed.gov, 2008). Funding for schools has also increased 52.6% over that of 2001 (Ed.gov, 2008). It has been six years since the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). When

President, George W. Bush put this plan in motion, his projective goal was to have every child in the nation reading on or above grade level. In addition the progress in math was to be the same by 2014. (Ed.gov, 2008). In some ways the timeline may be somewhat unrealistic, given that their are a variety of uncontrollable variables that weigh heavily on the goal. The realm of Special Education is one of those areas. According No Child Left Behind (NCLB), every child is to receive a free and appropriate education. Furthermore, we have to look at the fact that we are living in a more pluralistic Society. If demographic predictions are accurate, educators will serve a growing minority population (which in some areas will become the majority population) well into the twenty-first century. Certainly more information about minority families is urgently needed. Finally, our leaders need to be more aware of our ever evolving pluralistic society in order for any reform to be effective in education in the United States of America. As a direct result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, additional funding has been allocated for the improvement of our educational system. AYP is statewide accountability system that has been mandated in accordance to the No Child Left Behind Act. This act requires that each state make sure that all schools within that particular state make progress adequately each year. These funds have provided training for supplemental training for many educators. They have also provided opportunities for students to receive group as well as one-on-one tutoring in

Educational Reform subjects that they have deficits in. This tutoring can take place in the childs home, church or public library. Educators are required to become highly qualified in their concentration area. In order for them to do so, some states have been offering incentives for those educators to return to school. These incentives include tuition reimbursement and on-site training as well. Reform Evaluation There are many questions that must be considered in order to see if a program is making progress. Here is a questionnaire which focuses on aspects of the programs listed above.
Reform Evaluation

1. To what extent does the reform use content standards to guide curriculum and instruction? 2. Is there a strategic plan for enabling all students to achieve to high levels of performance? 3. What type of professional development is available to enable staff to teach the content students are expected
to learn? How will these extra trainings be incorporated into the yearly school calendar during school hours?

4. Are there adaptations so that all students are expected to achieve to high levels of performance? If they are
not able to meet those standards, what are the consequences?

5. What are the adaptations for Limited-English proficient students and Students with learning disabilities?
When will they be accountable for their scores?

6. What would be the assessments, that measure performance against the content,that students are expected to
learn? 8. Does the reform require additional financial resources, if so how does the reform address this issue? 9. What services will be provided to students that are not able to meet the requirements stated by the state in order to continue the next grade level? 10. What expectations are there for the teachers? 11. Who and what is the reform evaluating?

12. Will an annual test be used to measure the goals being met of the reform? 13. Will teachers and school administrators be provided with a survey in order to get their opinion on what
improvements are being attained and what the challenges are with the plan?

14. Has the drop-out rate improved? 15. How will we account for those students that are not on grade level? Will another form of the assessment be
given in order to measure the growth of this student each year?

Educational Reform

The above questionnaire will provide information to see how much progress we have made in schools. In order to see results, everyone must put in their part and details that do not make sense must be worked out. Teachers, administrators, parents, and legislature should be able to put input in and decide what is best for our schools, our children, and definitely their futures. Conclusion Clearly, neither reform effort has reached a level of true success. As more data is gathered, adjustments will be needed in order to continue progress and monitor growth. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has not detected a decline in educational achievement over the past twenty years, although its findings do present a great cause for concern about the low level of proficiency of some American youth. Never the less, because of our pluralistic society, America will always need to be open, ready for change, and ready for reform. The bipartisan nature of both Goals 2000 and NCLB made the process of formulating the acts effective; however, direct involvement from educators and educational leaders would have improved the process. Nonetheless, both reform movements have helped to strengthen aspects and to raise the expectations of our nations educational system. References Austin, T. (n.d.) Goals 2000The Clinton Administration Education Program. Retrieved on October 2, 2008 from http://www.nd.edu/rbarger/www7/goals200.html Cromwell, S. (1999). Goals 2000: How Are We Doing? Retrieved on October 1, 2008 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin106.shtml Ed.Gov (2008) Building On Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act Retrieved October 1, 2008 http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/factsheets/blueprint.html

Educational Reform

10

Ed.gov. (2008). Mapping Americas Progress 2008. Retrieved on October 3, 2008, from http://ed.gov/print/nclb/accountability/results/progress/nation.html Jorgensen PHD, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003, August 2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act 2001. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1994). Summary of Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved on October 2, 2008 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/stw/sw0goals.htm US Department of Education (2007) .No Child Left Behind Fifth Anniversary. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/news/av/audio/2007/01082007.html US Department of Education (1998, APRIL 1998). Reforming Education to Improve Standards-Based Reform. Retrieved October -2-2008, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/G2KReforming/g2ch3.html Wikipedia. (2008). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved on 10-2-2008, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind