If you have trouble viewing documents on the Center on Education Policy web site, please:
● Make sure you are using the latest Adobe Reader.
● If you clear your web browser's cache and cookies, and confirm that you are using the latest version of Adobe Reader, and are still unable to view publications or pages on the Center on Education Policy web site, please contact the CEP web support team. We will assist you promptly.
* Click the asterisk after a file name to view the direct download link to that file. Click the asterisk again to hide the direct download link.
This report takes an in-depth look at how classroom practices have been influenced by No Child Left Behind and related state policies in Illinois. Drawn from classroom observations and interviews, the report sheds new light on how teachers, principals, and administrators have responded to the federal school accountability law.
This report takes an in-depth look at how classroom practices have been influenced by No Child Left Behind and related state policies in Rhode Island. Drawn from classroom observations and interviews, the report sheds new light on how teachers, principals, and administrators have responded to the federal school accountability law.
In 2008, the Center on Education Policy undertook a project to rethink the federal role in elementary and secondary education. As a first step, CEP commissioned a series of papers on key issues, requiring the authors to provide evidence of the effects of various programs and initiatives, and to provide recommendations. Each paper was peer-reviewed by individuals with diverse points of view on the issue. Also, CEP convened a series of public forums in 2008 through 2009 to discuss several of the papers. We also compiled a compendium of key studies on the No Child Left Behind Act.
The result of these efforts formed a set of recommendations for the new President and Congress for shaping the federal role in elementary and secondary education.
FORUM 1: Oct 6, 2008 at the Dirksen Senate Office Building
Paul Manna of the College of William and Mary presented a paper on the history of the federal role in education.
FORUM 2: Nov 19, 2008, at the Rayburn House Office Building
Papers were presented by Heather Weiss of the Harvard Family Research Project and Sharon Lynn Kagan of Columbia University. Dr. Weiss's paper addresses the federal role in out of school learning. Dr. Kagan's paper is on early childhood education.
FORUM 3: Nov 20, 2008, at the Rayburn House Office Building
Laura S. Hamilton and Brian M. Stecher of the RAND Corporation presented their paper on standards-based education reform, and W. James Popham of the University of California at Los Angeles presented his paper on the role of assessments in federal education programs.
FORUM 4: Mar 5, 2009 at the Rayburn House Office Building (Rm 2261)
Authors Gary Sykes and Kenne Dibner discussed their paper on federal efforts to improve teaching.
FORUM 5: Apr 30, 2009 at the Capitol Visitor Center in the U.S. Capitol Building (Rooms 208/209 SVC)
CEP convened its fifth forum in this series to discuss the impact of the economic stimulus funds on the federal role in elementary and secondary education. Speakers included Jeff Simering of the Council of the Great City Schools; Mary Kusler of the American Association of School Administrators; Dane Linn of the National Governors Association; Deborah Rigsby of the National School Boards Association; and Gene Wilhoit of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Presenters addressed two questions: how are the education funds in the economic stimulus package now being spent, and will there be any effect on the future federal role in elementary and secondary education as a result of the stimulus package? View Forum Materials
FORUM 6: Jul 1, 2009 at the Dirksen Office Building (Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing room)
Dr. Russell Rumberger of the University of California at Santa Barbara presented his paper on the federal role in improving high schools.
This report synthesizes findings from CEP's research on how the No Child Left Behind Act's school restructuring requirements are being implemented in Michigan, California, Maryland, Ohio, and Georgia. Document reviews and interviews with state officials were conducted in the five states, and case study research was carried out in 19 districts and 42 schools. Among the report's findings are that more schools have entered restructuring and many remain in that status for multiple years; the "any other" restructuring option is the most popular option in the states studied; and the five states varied greatly in the supports they offered restructuring schools.
This report, CEP’s third annual review of Maryland’s efforts to restructure schools under the No Child Left Behind Act, finds that (1) although between school years 2006-07 and 2007-08 the number of schools in the restructuring implementation phase declined slightly, there was a drastic increase in the number of schools entering restructuring planning; (2) more restructuring schools are choosing to replace most or all of their staff (including principals) as a strategy; and (3) the “turnaround specialist” option for restructuring is losing favor in Maryland. The report’s findings are based on interviews with state officials, case studies of four school districts and 10 schools within those districts.
This report discusses funding for states and schools districts under the federal Title I, Part A program for school year 2008-09. (Title I is the largest federal program assisting elementary and secondary schools, and contains the key accountability provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act.) The report highlights the impact of annual poverty count updates on the distribution of funds, and discusses funding for school improvement activities. The report also examines the targeting of Title I funds to the highest poverty districts.
This report describes Georgia's school restructuring efforts under the No Child Left Behind Act, including findings from interviews with state officials and regional administrators and case studies of five schools in three school districts: Atlanta Public Schools, Muscogee County School District, and Stewart County School District. Key findings from the report include: (1) the number of Georgia schools implementing restructuring has declined since 2004 and a substantial number have exited; (2) restructuring plans in Georgia tend to focus on state priorities for school improvement; (3) the small number of schools in restructuring, as well as the state’s willingness to invest additional dollars in improving them, has allowed Georgia to provide intensive intervention in schools; and (4) Georgia imposes requirements beyond those in federal law on schools that have implemented restructuring for two years without making adequate yearly progress.
This report examines the new developments in the implementation of state high school exit exams in the 26 states that currently implement or plan to implement these tests. The report specifically focuses on the states’ move away from minimum-competency and comprehensive exams toward end-of-course exams.
This report describes Ohio's school restructuring efforts under the No Child Left Behind Act, including findings from interviews with state officials and case studies of nine schools in four school districts: Cincinnati Public Schools, Cleveland Metropolitan School District, Mansfield City Schools, and Mount Vernon City Schools. Key findings from the report include: (1) despite holding steady for the previous three years, the number of Ohio schools in restructuring rose from 56 schools in 2006-07 to 130 schools in 2007-08; (2) only 7 of the 177 Ohio schools ever in restructuring have successfully exited; (3) districts in Ohio that receive federal improvement funds must share data and permit state officials to visit their schools; and (4) while some Ohio schools have received attention for choosing to replace their entire staffs, most report doing so reluctantly and advise other schools to do so only as a last resort.
Using testing data from all 50 states, this study addresses two key questions: has student achievement increased and have achievement gaps narrowed since the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted in 2002. A comparison is also made between state test results and results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Research report on the impact of the fifth year of implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act on a geographically diverse list of schools and school districts.
The following reports comprise the Annual Report for Year 5 (Click to View the individual reports):
This CEP report examines the impact of NCLB on student achievement and teacher quality in some rural districts and the challenges those rural districts face in complying with the Act. The findings in this report are drawn from CEP’s 2006-07 nationally representative survey of school districts and from interviews with administrators in eight rural districts in various parts of the country.
To assist officials of the District of Columbia Public Schools with their efforts to develop and implement school restructuring plans consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act, on May 28, 2008, the Center on Education Policy sent an open letter to Chancellor Rhee, State Superintendent Gist, and Board President Bobb outlining the key lessons we have learned from studying the NCLB school restructuring process. CEP has examined school restructuring in Michigan for four years, and restructuring in California and Maryland for three years. This summer, CEP will also issue reports on the restructuring process in Georgia and Ohio. The key lessons shared with DCPS officials are based on examining data related to restructuring in those five states as well as detailed case studies of 19 districts and 42 restructuring schools within those districts.
This report examines the interim objectives for student achievement established by states in their accountability plans for the No Child Left Behind Act. These objectives lay out the percentages of students that must score at or above the proficient level on state tests each year, on the way toward meeting the law's ultimate goal of 100% of students achieving proficiency by school year 2013-14. These annual objectives are used by states to determine whether schools and districts have made adequate yearly progress. CEP's analysis found that almost half of the states (23 states) have "backloaded" their trajectories for reaching 100% proficiency. In other words, they have called for smaller achievement gains in the earlier years of the trajectory and much steeper gains in later years, as 2014 grows nearer. Another 25 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a more incremental approach that assumes steadier progress toward the 100% goal. The two remaining states have blended trajectories that do not fit readily into the backloaded or incremental categories.
This report describes Michigan's school restructuring efforts under the No Child Left Behind Act, and includes findings from case studies of nine schools in four school districts: Detroit Public Schools, Flint Community Schools, Harrison Community Schools, and Willow Run Community Schools. Key findings from the report include (1) more Michigan schools are in restructuring due to a greater number of high schools entering restructuring; (2) the state offers additional assistance and monitoring to restructuring schools through intermediate school districts and other regional entities; (3) turnaround specialists remain the most popular restructuring option; and (4) federal Title I funds increased, but state financial difficulties hinder restructuring.
Policy Brief 1: A Move Toward End-of-Course Exams
Author(s): Dalia Zabala
States continue to move toward end-of-course exams. The use of end-of-course exams as a graduation requirement began with one state in 2002, four states in 2007, and an expected 12 states in 2015. This brief illustrates this shift and summarizes some of the upcoming changes.
Published: January 31, 2008
Policy Brief 2: Patterns in Gaps in Pass Rates
Author(s): Dalia Zabala and Angela Minnici
In this brief, the Center on Education Policy highlights two patterns in state high school exit exam pass rates. States with higher percentages of white students passing exit exams also tend to report higher percentage pass rates for students of color. Furthermore, states with higher overall pass rates tend to report smaller achievement gaps between subgroups. Why do these relationships exit?
Published: February 28, 2008
Policy Brief 3: Students with Disabilities
Author(s): Dalia Zabala
States with mandated high school exit exams consistently report low pass rates for students with disabilities. These low pass rates have led educators to implement various intervention and remediation programs. Yet these gaps persist until the end of 12th grade, even though students have had multiple opportunities to retake the exam. This brief highlights some of the most common alternative paths to graduation for students with disabilities in states that require students to achieve passing scores on exit exams to receive a high school diploma.
Published: March 25, 2008
Availability: Policy Brief 1 | Policy Brief 2 | Policy Brief 3
This report examines the magnitude of changes in instructional time in elementary schools in the years since NCLB took effect in 2002, and is a follow up report to Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era that was issued by CEP in July 2007.
This report describes California’s school restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act, and also includes findings from case studies of nine schools in four school district: Grant Joint Union, Oakland Unified, Palmdale Elementary, and Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified.
On January 24, 2008, Dr. Caitlin Scott, CEP consultant, testified before California’s Little Hoover Commission about school restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act. The Little Hoover Commission is an independent state oversight agency that investigates state government operations and aims to promote efficiency, economy, and service. The testimony is based on CEP studies of restructuring in California, Maryland, and Michigan, as well as CEP’s five-year study of NCLB, our annual reports on Title I funding, and our 2007 study of state capacity.