|
|
|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 9, 2004
|
|
|
No Child Left Behind: A Federal-, State-, and District- Level Look at the First Year
Unparalleled Reports from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University Examine Landmark Public Education Act
|
RESEARCH METHODS (return to the press release)
FEDERAL REPORT
The analysis of federal-state relations is based on multiple sources of information. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with federal policymakers and administrators in the U.S. Department of Education, staff for key Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were instrumental in drafting NCLB, and leaders of several national advocacy organizations with an interest in education and state government. In addition to the interview data, researchers examined regulatory guidance on NCLB, policy letters issued by the Secretary of Education, speeches by the President and Secretary, reports issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office and other organizations, and newspaper articles from across the country. State policy documents and state accountability plans submitted to comply with NCLB were also closely reviewed.
STATE REPORT
Six states—Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Virginia, and Georgia—were purposefully selected for this national study on NCLB using following criteria:
- States are geographically and politically diverse
- Each state has a large proportion of minority students
- Degree of state control over local education policy varies across the six states, and
- Status of reform process as it relates to new federal requirements.
To study NCLB implementation, researchers conducted interviews with:
- state superintendents
- state administrators responsible for assessment, accountability, and information technology
- directors of federal programs, research and evaluation, and teacher staffing, and
- members of the state boards of education.
In addition to interview data, the researchers reviewed the state consolidated applications for federal funding under NCLB, state accountability workbooks submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, and the final regulations governing NCLB implementation. Second, researchers collected quantitative data for all public schools in each state on:
- Title I program status and number of years in school improvement
- student enrollment and background characteristics, and
- achievement outcomes and constructed six state databases that included information on these variables for all public schools in the state.
CHOICE and SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES REPORTS
The sample for these two reports included 11 districts in six states, including Mesa Public Schools and Washington Elementary District Schools, AZ; Fresno Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District, CA; Chicago Public Schools, IL; Buffalo Public Schools and New York City Public Schools, NY; Arlington Public Schools and Richmond Public Schools, VA; and Atlanta Public Schools and DeKalb County Schools, GA. The sample includes the nation's three largest public schools districts: Los Angeles Unified School District, the Chicago Public Schools, and the New York City Public Schools. Together, these three districts enroll over 2 million students in 1,807 schools. Three districts—DeKalb County, GA; Fresno, CA; and Mesa, AZ—are among the nation's 50 largest school districts. The five remaining districts are located in the "central-city" portion of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in Phoenix, AZ (Washington Elementary School District); Buffalo, NY; Atlanta, GA; Washington, DC (Arlington County, VA); and Richmond, VA.
Researchers used both qualitative and quantitative sources of data for these studies. The researchers conducted interviews with district officials, including superintendents, associate superintendents, Title I program coordinators, and other program coordinators with responsibilities related to NCLB. In addition to the interview data, researchers reviewed district documents and policies related to their choice and supplemental educational services policies. Second, researchers collected district statistics on the number of schools identified as needing improvement, the number of students requesting and receiving transfers, and the number of students requesting and taking advantage of supplemental services. This database developed for the state study provided data on Title I program status and number of years in school improvement, enrollment, student background characteristics and achievement.
(return to the press release)
Respond to this press release with an e-mail to the editor
HGSE News, Harvard Graduate School of Education
© 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College.
|
