1 NCLB Title Program Monitoring NCLB Title Program Monitoring Regional Training SPRING 2006.
NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
-
Upload
gabby-henrie -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
1/22
Cost Benefit Analysis of theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB)
Presented bySurendrakumar Bagde
Peter EdelmanDavid Lee4/28/2004
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
2/22
NCLB Background
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
3/22
W e explored three aspects NCLB
Background of NCLB
Declining test scores
Other education actsNCLB features
NCLB Costs
NCLB Benefits
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
4/22
S tudent Intellectual AchievementDeclined in the 1970s
GeneralIntellectual
Achievement(GIA)declined in the1970s
Source: Bishop (1989)
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
5/22
NCLB Established AccountabilityS tandards that Are Expected toEnhance S tudent Achievement
Adequate YearlyProgress (AYP)TestingStates set the
standardsPenalties for failure tomeet AYP
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
6/22
Congress Responded to theDecline
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)
Provided funding and assistance to K-12 schools
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
Maintains ESEA principles & act appropriationsEstablishes accountability standards
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
7/22
NCLB requirements have caused
controversy
Conflicts with state standards
Forces schools to focus on testing
Addresses failure through punishmentinstead of assistance
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
8/22
NCLB Costs
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
9/22
Costs of the NCLB Programare Hotly Debated
A politically charged debateFederal vs. State and LocalSupporters vs. Haters
Fundamental disagreement on what the costscope of the NCLB project should be
Difference in expected States level inacademic proficiency under IASA vs. actualproficiency
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
10/22
G oals of NCLB (2002~2014)
1) Meet state-set standards for subject mastery within time-frame
2) Ensure states assess student knowledge to check #1
3) Define and implement teacher quality improvement efforts toachieve #2
4) Define ways that can improve schools performance
5) Ensure student performance feedback to parents is effective
6) Gives freedom in allocation of funds by states to achieve allthese goals
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
11/22
Cost Components of NCLB Accountability (AYP and Student Assessments)
Annual testing of studentsReading (grades 3~8)Math (grades 3~8)Science (grades 3~5, 6~9, and 10~12)English for LEP studentsDisability students (IDEA)
Personnel Attracting hiring high-quality teachers/paraprofessionalsRetention
Information ManagementDatabase systems for analyzing dataReporting and monitoring
School ImprovementCorrective action on delinquent schoolsStudent support systems to increase performance
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
12/22
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
13/22
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
14/22
Cost Estimates (2010~2014):NCLB incremental costs over IA S A, etc.
$ 17,609,873,25$ 7,206,477,812$ 7,059,727,076$ 6,901,459,866In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%)
$ 22,982,000,00$ 9,180,000,000$ 8,778,000,000$ 8,376,000,000Total Each Year
$ 2,300,000,000$ 2,200,000,000$ 2,100,000,000$ 2,000,000,000School Improvement
$ 82,000,000$ 80,000,000$ 78,000,000$ 76,000,000Information Management$ 5,600,000,000$ 5,400,000,000$ 5,200,000,000$ 5,000,000,000Personnel
$ 15,000,000,00$ 1,500,000,000$ 1,400,000,000$ 1,300,000,000Accountability
2013-142012-132011-122010-11
$ 17,609,873,25$ 7,206,477,812$ 7,059,727,076$ 6,901,459,866In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%)
$ 22,982,000,00$ 9,180,000,000$ 8,778,000,000$ 8,376,000,000Total Each Year
$ 2,300,000,000$ 2,200,000,000$ 2,100,000,000$ 2,000,000,000School Improvement
$ 82,000,000$ 80,000,000$ 78,000,000$ 76,000,000Information Management$ 5,600,000,000$ 5,400,000,000$ 5,200,000,000$ 5,000,000,000Personnel
$ 15,000,000,00$ 1,500,000,000$ 1,400,000,000$ 1,300,000,000Accountability
2013-142012-132011-122010-11
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
15/22
T otal Cost Estimates for NCLB
Components Total 2002~2014
Accountability 24,770,665,570
Personnel 51,610,394,766Information Management 924,256,120
School Improvement 19,839,448,838
Total 97,144,765,294
In 2002 Real Terms (2.45%) $ 82,066,405,788
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
16/22
NCLB Benefits
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
17/22
Pennsylvania S ystem of S choolAssessment (P SS A)
Determines how well children are learning atcertain grade levels.
Subjects are: reading, math and writingPSSA has a range of 800-1600The standard deviation for 5 th grade math is67.1, reading 5 th grade is 59.59,8 th grademath is 65.8,The mean is around 1330
Source: Davare (2004 )
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
18/22
Pennsylvania S ystem of S choolAssessment (P SS A)
By 2014 the minimum score at the proficientlevel has to be 1300
The new mean score will be 1450 (range hasto b3 1300-1600)The quality improvement, taken as differencebetween two means, is 120In terms of todays standard deviation, qualityimprovement is 1.84*s.d.
Source: Davare (2004 )
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
19/22
Economic Benefits of QualityImprovement
Test performance have the effect on earningpotential of individualsOne standard deviation difference on testperformance is related to 1 difference inannual growth rates of GDP per capita
An improvement of 1 s.d. would put U.S.
student performance in line with that of students in a variety of high performingEuropean countries
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
20/22
Quality Improvements have highpay-offs
resent Value of enefits
5900
11803
17704
0.5 S.D. 1 S.D. 1.5 S.D.
Quality Improvement in S
V
i n
i l l i o n s
S ource: Hanushek (2004 )
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
21/22
Conclusions
Present value of benefits is projected torange from 6T to 17T.
Benefits far exceed costs, thus NPV isinsensitive to cost levels & discount rate.Reverses the trend of U. S. students fallingbehind students in other countries
-
8/7/2019 NCLB Presentation Final 5-10-04
22/22
Bibliography:Bishop, John H. Is the Test Score Decline Responsible for the Productivity Growth Decline?, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, March 1989, p. 178-197
Wermers, Jason, No Child called impractical, Richmond Times-Dispatch ,http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD 2FM G Article 2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=M G Article&cid=1031773592674 February 10, 2004
Davare, Dave, director of research, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, personalcommunication through Robert Strauss, April 27, 2004
Hanushek, Eric A., Some Simple Analytics of School Quality, Working Paper 10229, NationalBureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w10229 , January, 2004
Accountability Works, NCLB Under a Microscope, Education Leaders Council, January 2004.
Mathis, William J., No Child Left Behind, Costs and Benefits, Phi Delta Kappan,www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305mat.htm .
Hanushek, Eric A., The Importance of School Quality, Education Next , Spring 2003,http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20032/141.pdf , viewed 4/29/04