ysis of the No Chil.ppt

1、Cost Benefit Analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),Presented by Surendrakumar Bagde Peter Edelman David Lee 4/28/2004,NCLB Background,We explored three aspects NCLB,Background of NCLB Declining test scores Other education acts NCLB features NCLB Costs NCLB Benefits,Student Intellec

2、tual Achievement Declined in the 1970s,General Intellectual Achievement (GIA) declined in the 1970s,Source: Bishop (1989),NCLB Established Accountability Standards that Are Expected to Enhance Student Achievement,Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Testing States set the standards Penalties for failure t

3、o meet AYP,Congress Responded to the Decline,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 appropriations Establishes accountability standards,NCLB requirements have caused

4、 controversy,Conflicts with state standards Forces schools to focus on testing Addresses failure through punishment instead of assistance,NCLB Costs,Costs of the NCLB Program are Hotly Debated,A politically charged debate Federal vs. State and Local Supporters vs. Haters Fundamental disagreement on

5、what the cost scope of the NCLB project should be Difference in expected States level in academic proficiency under IASA vs. actual proficiency,Goals of NCLB (20022014),Meet state-set standards for subject mastery within time-frame Ensure states assess student knowledge to check #1 Define and implem

6、ent teacher quality improvement efforts to achieve #2 Define ways that can improve schools performance Ensure student performance feedback to parents is effective Gives freedom in allocation of funds by states to achieve all these goals,Cost Components of NCLB,Accountability (AYP and Student Assessm

7、ents) Annual testing of students Reading (grades 38) Math (grades 38) Science (grades 35, 69, and 1012) English for LEP students Disability students (IDEA) Personnel Attracting hiring high-quality teachers/paraprofessionals Retention Information Management Database systems for analyzing data Reporti

8、ng and monitoring School Improvement Corrective action on “delinquent” schools Student support systems to increase performance,Cost Estimates (20022006):NCLB incremental costs over IASA, etc.,Costs for 20023 and 20034 are actual figures Costs from 20042008 are projections by ELC,Cost Estimates (2006

9、2010):NCLB incremental costs over IASA, etc.,We have estimated cost projections from 20082014,Cost Estimates (20102014):NCLB incremental costs over IASA, etc.,Total Cost Estimates for NCLB,NCLB Benefits,Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA),Determines how well children are learning at cert

10、ain grade levels. Subjects are: reading, math and writing PSSA has a range of 800-1600 The standard deviation for 5th grade math is 67.1, reading 5th grade is 59.59,8th grade math is 65.8, The mean is around 1330,Source: Davare (2004 ),Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA),By 2014 the mini

11、mum score at the proficient level has to be 1300 The new mean score will be 1450 (range has to b3 1300-1600) The quality improvement, taken as difference between two means, is 120 In terms of todays standard deviation, quality improvement is 1.84*s.d.,Source: Davare (2004 ),Economic Benefits of Qual

12、ity Improvement,Test performance have the effect on earning potential of individuals One standard deviation difference on test performance is related to 1 % difference in annual growth rates of GDP per capita An improvement of 1 s.d. would put U.S. student performance in line with that of students i

13、n a variety of high performing European countries,Quality Improvements have high pay-offs,Source: Hanushek (2004),Conclusions,Present value of benefits is projected to range from $6T to $17T. Benefits far exceed costs, thus NPV is insensitive to cost levels & discount rate. Reverses the trend of U.

14、S. students falling behind students in other countries,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-Dispat

15、ch, RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773592674 February 10, 2004 Davare, Dave, director of research, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, personal communication through Robert Strauss, April 27, 2004 Hanushek, Eric A., “Some Simple Analytics of School Quality”, Working Paper 10229, National Bureau of Economic Research, /papers/w10229 , January, 2004 Accountability Works, “NCLB Under a Microscope”, Education Leaders Council, January 2004. Mathis, William J., “No Ch