NCLB Student Subgroup Accountability 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which criticism of NCLB's subgroup accountability model argued that schools serving diverse populations were unfairly penalized?
- The 'diversity penalty' argument, because more subgroups meant more chances to miss AYP (Correct answer)
- The 'resource gap' argument, because diverse schools received less Title I funding
- The 'curriculum narrowing' critique, targeting English-only instruction requirements
- The 'testing overload' argument, because diverse schools had longer test days
Correct answer: The 'diversity penalty' argument, because more subgroups meant more chances to miss AYP
Critics noted that schools with many diverse subgroups had more opportunities to miss AYP on any one subgroup, making it statistically harder for diverse schools to be rated as successful.
Question 2: Under NCLB, a school that fails AYP for three consecutive years must provide what service in addition to public school choice?
- After-school tutoring only
- Supplemental educational services (SES) from approved outside providers (Correct answer)
- One-on-one mentoring by district staff
- Mandatory summer school enrollment
Correct answer: Supplemental educational services (SES) from approved outside providers
After three years of failing AYP, Title I schools must offer supplemental educational services—free tutoring and academic help from state-approved providers—to eligible students.
Question 3: How did NCLB's 'growth model' pilots differ from the standard AYP subgroup accountability approach?
- Growth models excluded subgroups from accountability entirely
- Growth models measured individual student progress over time rather than just whether they met a proficiency cut score in a single year (Correct answer)
- Growth models replaced disaggregated reporting with aggregate school scores
- Growth models were used only for schools in restructuring
Correct answer: Growth models measured individual student progress over time rather than just whether they met a proficiency cut score in a single year
Growth model pilots, approved for some states, allowed credit for students making significant academic progress even if they had not yet reached the proficiency cut score.
Question 4: What federal office was primarily responsible for approving state accountability plans under NCLB, including subgroup definitions and AYP calculations?
- The U.S. Department of Labor
- The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Correct answer)
- The National Center for Education Statistics
- The Government Accountability Office
Correct answer: The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) reviewed and approved state accountability plans submitted under NCLB.
Question 5: Under NCLB, what was the consequence if a state failed to disaggregate and publicly report subgroup performance data?
- The state lost its right to set its own proficiency standards
- The state risked losing Title I federal funding (Correct answer)
- All schools in the state were automatically placed in improvement status
- The state was required to adopt federal curriculum standards
Correct answer: The state risked losing Title I federal funding
States that failed to comply with NCLB's reporting and accountability requirements, including subgroup disaggregation, risked losing their Title I federal education funding.
Question 6: Which provision allowed a subgroup that missed the AYP proficiency target to still help a school meet AYP if the subgroup showed sufficient improvement in other academic indicators?
- The confidence interval provision
- The safe harbor provision (Correct answer)
- The growth model provision
- The exemption clause
Correct answer: The safe harbor provision
The safe harbor provision allowed a subgroup to meet AYP requirements if it reduced its percentage of non-proficient students by at least 10%, even without reaching the proficiency target.
Question 7: NCLB required that subgroup data be reported publicly. Where were parents and community members primarily expected to find this information?
- Annual state budget reports filed with Congress
- School and district report cards published by states (Correct answer)
- Federal Register notices posted annually
- U.S. Census Bureau educational data releases
Correct answer: School and district report cards published by states
NCLB required states to produce annual school and district report cards that publicly reported disaggregated subgroup performance data in an accessible format.
NCLB Student Subgroup Accountability 5
Which criticism of NCLB's subgroup accountability model argued that schools serving diverse populations were unfairly penalized?