| Session Title: Learning From the Consequences of No Child Left Behind on Evaluation (Part 1 of 2) |
| Multipaper Session 735 to be held in International Ballroom B on Saturday, November 10, 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM |
| Sponsored by the Pre-K - 12 Educational Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| Rebecca Eddy, Claremont Graduate University, rebecca.eddy@cgu.edu |
| Abstract: The primary purpose of the proposed sessions (Parts 1 and 2) is to explore what the field of evaluation has learned since the inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Specifically, we will discuss how the practice of evaluation within the context of NCLB has itself been changed, and as a result, influences the purpose and the design of educational evaluation. In light of the reauthorization of NCLB set to occur in 2007, it is clear (for better or worse) that this legislation has substantively impacted schools, districts, and communities. It is also clear, but not often discussed, that NCLB has impacted the evaluation community. These panels explore NCLB and educational evaluation through the lens of professional evaluation. In the first panel, we hope to identify key issues of the legislation and then discuss case studies of how NCLB impacted a program, a school, and one district in Texas. |
| An Overview of No Child Left Behind |
| Jack Mills, Claremont Unified School District, jackmillsphd@aol.com |
| Despite concerns over its lofty goals, implementation challenges and uneven results, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is not going away. In fact, the sweeping educational reform President George W. Bush signed into law in 2002 is up for reauthorization in 2007 and the commission reviewing potential modifications in the law has proposed increasing the stringency of some provisions. The law affects evaluators working in public education in fundamental ways. Its requirements for 'rigorous scientific evidence' determine which types of research proposals receive government funding and which practices may be officially designated as 'effective'. The manner in which NCLB's accountability requirements are defined and measured affect the types of questions evaluators may be called upon to help school administrators answer and the type of evidence to be considered. This session will provide evaluators with an overview and update of the critical provisions of NCLB and how they affect our field. |
| Consequences of No Child Left Behind from a Local After School Evaluator |
| Maura Harrington, Lodestar Management/Research Inc, mharrington@lmresearch.com |
| Blanca Flor Guillen-Woods, Lodestar Management/Research Inc, bfguillen@lmresearch.com |
| Recent emphasis on impact evaluation has generated greater interest in outcome evaluation in K-12 settings. While seemingly favorable, several negative consequences have been discovered. While increased program accountability is essential, the indicators chosen by funders are often misleading. Some, particularly after school programs, are not fully compatible with the program's intent, compelling the program to change format and service delivery with some of the outcomes outpacing the program intensity to realize such results in a given time period. The question becomes: How should one address funders' expectations for academic improvement while ensuring that the program continues to improve in addressing youth development and engaging hard-to-reach students? Part of this challenge is related to how evaluation data are collected and used, particularly when trying to balance program and evaluation demands. The experiences with an Out-of-School Time (OST) evaluation of the program conducted by Woodcraft Rangers agency in Southern California are described. |
| No Child Left Behind and Evaluative Thinking From a Local School Perspective |
| Meta Nelson, Bassett Unified School District, mnelson@bassett.k12.ca.us |
| Rebecca Eddy, Claremont Graduate University, rebecca.eddy@cgu.edu |
| We have learned a great deal about how No Child Left Behind (NCLB) can impact the educational process at local schools as well as the field of evaluation. Schools have been challenged to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals, and educators have been required to take on more intensive roles as evaluators to succeed in the current system. Similarly, the evaluator's role in assisting schools can now be described as more focused on evaluation capacity building. This paper will describe a case study of a middle school in California where strategic changes in planning and teaching through increased evaluation capacity building contributed to improved student achievement. We will describe a model for macro-planning in which strong principal leadership guided structural changes and professional development activities such as peer coaching and the use of data from state and local assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of current practice. |
| Using Evaluation Data to Strike a Balance Between Stakeholders and Accountability Systems: Consequences of No Child Left Behind From a District Evaluator |
| Maria Elise Defino Whitsett, Austin Independent School District, mwhitset@austinisd.org |
| Lisa Schmitt, Austin Independent School District, lschmitt@austinisd.org |
| From the perspective of a district evaluator in a large Texas district, new challenges have arisen since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Most notably, those challenges relate to (1) navigating state and federal accountability systems with, at times, competing requirements; (2) evaluating the effectiveness of the sanctions (i.e., Supplemental Service Providers and School Choice) districts are required to address; (3) using Scientifically-Based Research (SBR) as a basis for selecting effective programs/interventions to implement; and (4) initiating SBR given high student mobility, inefficient data management systems, and competing priorities of local schools. The purpose of this presentation is to detail these challenges that district level evaluators deal with on a daily basis, to highlight ways in which they can put processes into place to strike a balance between supporting decision-making in the district and conducting rigorous research on its own programs. |