More Information or More Paperwork Reporting Requirements for Michigans Schools under No Child Left Behind. Policy Report 23Report as inadecuate




More Information or More Paperwork Reporting Requirements for Michigans Schools under No Child Left Behind. Policy Report 23 - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.



Education Policy Center, Michigan State University

The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires school districts in every state to publish and disseminate annual report cards with information on district performance. Schools are required to report similar information. These report cards must include not only information on overall student achievement, but also on the performance of measurable subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students, special education students, and students from major racial and ethnic groups. (In Michigan, student achievement for this purpose is measured by the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP.) Michigan state law requires schools and districts to report most of this information for a generation. Along with provisions for several curricular reforms and new school programs, Public Act 25 of 1990 included a statewide requirement for a school report card. Under P.A. 25, school districts in Michigan are required to report annually on student test scores, school accreditation status, retention/dropout rates, and several other types of information for each of their schools and for the district overall. The reporting requirements of NCLB would seem to be superfluous for the state of Michigan, but before judging the value of the NCLB reporting requirements, the question to ask is whether schools and districts complied with existing state law? The authors of this report used data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) for the 1999-2000 school year to examine the district and school production of performance reports in Michigan, and at the information contained in those reports. Their analysis includes the responses of 143 Michigan school districts and 297 schools, and is weighted to be representative at the state level. These data were collected prior to the 2002 passage of NCLB and provide information about the types of reports that were available to the public before the new reporting requirements were even under serious discussion. The report concludes that most Michigan schools and districts were reporting performance data to parents and the community prior to the report card requirement of NCLB. The data suggests that reporting requirements do make a difference: reporting rates for information not specified by P.A. 25 were much lower than for information included in the legislation. The issue of reporting requirements will soon be eclipsed by the component of NCLB known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). NCLB reporting requirements, then, is more of a report card to the federal government than to parents. The report contains two tables. Table 1 looks at the types of information reported by school districts and schools to the public they serve. Table 2 looks at reporting by a variety of district characteristics: size, urbanicity, degree of poverty and minority enrollment.

Descriptors: State Legislation, Federal Legislation, Dropout Rate, Ethnic Groups, Economically Disadvantaged, Academic Achievement, Achievement Rating, School Districts, Weighted Scores, Student Improvement

Education Policy Center. Michigan State University, 201 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034. Tel: 517-355-4494; Fax: 517-432-6202; e-mail: EPC[at]msu.edu; Web site: http://www.epc.msu.edu





Author: Harris, Debbi; Burian-Fitzgerald, Marisa

Source: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=a&ft=on&ff1=dtySince_1992&pg=5304&id=ED498629







Related documents