Search

This paper summarizes a panel discussion that addressed exit-exam policies and dropout issues. It presents the panel members' conclusions about existing research and their recommendations on what kinds of further work are needed. Research on how exit exams affect dropout rates is limited and inconclusive, so policies continue to be made in the absence of good information about the consequences for students and society. Most of the paper focuses on the paucity of research as it offer recommendations for further research, including longitudinal studies. The paper does, however, recap some research on dropouts that focused on the underlying reasons for dropping out. The paper concludes with the following recommendations for policymakers to support better information and practices on the potential costs and benefits of exit exams: (1) Report more informative exit-exam results; (2) improve data systems; (3) provide incentives for accurate recordkeeping; (4) keep historical records; (5) consider menus of policies; and (6) support success. (Contains 19 references.) (WFA)

This study examines how the federal government and states prepare to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Researchers reviewed states' consolidated applications for federal grants; conducted telephone interviews with officials in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and 8 school districts; and reviewed relevant research. The study addresses assessment and accountability; public school choice and supplemental education services requirements; teacher and paraprofessional quality; and use of scientifically based research to improve education. Overall, states are committed to the Act's goals of raising achievement for all subgroups and enhancing teacher quality and working to implement the law, though its deadlines for making massive changes are short and final regulations on some key issues were late in coming from the Department of Education. The main challenge states face are creating plans for determining whether schools are making adequate yearly progress in raising achievement. States and districts are slow in acting on requirements to offer public school choice and supplemental services. They are not very far along in using scientifically based research to inform classroom practice. Three appendices include protocol for review of state plans, an interview guide, and a policy summary of the No Child Left Behind Act. (Chapters contain references.) (SM)

This report presents baseline findings from a 3-year study of state exit exams. The study involved data from all states with current or planned exit exams; case studies of five states; and research review. Researchers examined: why so many states are adopting high school exit exams, impacts of exit exams on students, what the exams are like, and challenges states face in implementing exit exams. States adopt exit exams to motivate students to work harder and help teachers identify and address student weaknesses. The students most immediately impacted by exit exams are those who do not pass on the first try. Passing rates are lowest for African American, Hispanic, limited English speaking, and disabled students. Most students pass the test by the time they are ready to graduate. States are moving toward more rigorous exit exams that are better aligned with what students are learning. The exams are starting to incorporate more open-ended questions. Challenges in implementing exit exams include determining where to set the cutoff between passing and failing; ensuring that students have adequate opportunities to learn the material being tested; and determining multiple ways to demonstrate competency. Attachments include case studies from Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, New York, and Ohio and state profiles. (Contains 62 references.) (SM)

This report describes the results from an exploratory project conducted for the National Center for Education Statistics. The purpose of the project was to develop and field test questionnaire items and related methods designed to capture information about the instructional processes used nationally in 8th- to 12th-grade mathematics classrooms. Data from classroom observers, short logs of daily classroom practice, and a teacher questionnaire were used to assess the quality of the items. A survey questionnaire, field tested with 100 teachers, was completed by approximately 300 mathematics teachers, and a case study was conducted with 41 teachers in similar settings with comparable responsibilities. Results of these studies were used to make 10 recommendations to improve the field test validation process and the survey items. Thirteen appendixes contain supplemental information about the study and the test items. Appendix M contains a summary, in chart form, of recommended changes to the field test items. (Contains 21 references.) (SLD)

This report summarizes findings from surveys of Title I district administrators and private school representatives regarding the provision of Title I services to eligible students attending private schools. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), provides school districts with funds for supplementary instruction and support to educationally disadvantaged students. A provision of the ESEA directs school districts to provide Title I services to eligible students residing in participating public school district attendance areas but attending private schools. The mandate also requires that these services be equitable to services provided the public school peers of these private school students. The survey, which targeted 200 school districts known to provide Title I services to private school students, eventually had a response rate of 85% among Title I administrators and 80% among the representatives of private schools. Districts serving the largest number of private school students reported that they have provided Title I services to fewer private school students in the 2 years immediately following the IASA than in the years preceding its enactment. Just over half of the responding school districts did not collect information on the family income of students in all private schools. While there were generally positive assessments of the working relationships between Title I administrators and staffs and private school administrators, comparisons of their reports made it clear that there were significant differences in their reports about who is involved in consultation and the topics that are discussed. Large numbers of private school representatives were not knowledgeable about many aspects of Title I services to private school students, with gaps in information particularly large in issues related to program funding and student results. Few districts offer Title I services other than supplementary instruction to private school students, even though other types of services, such as counseling, health services, and homework assistance, are allowable. The percentage of school districts applying for capital funds under the ESEA has remained unchanged except among the largest districts, where the percentage has increased. Four appendixes contain school district and private school questionnaires, consultation exhibits, and standard error exhibits. (Contains 78 exhibits and 1 reference.) (SLD)