View in EDS

Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121
Language: English
Authors: van der Ploeg, Arie, Wan, Yinmei, Garcia, Alicia N., Wraight, Sara, Burke, Matthew, Norbury, Heather, Gerdeman, R. Dean, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest (ED)
Source: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. 2012.
Availability: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Available from: Learning Point Associates. 1120 East Diehl Road Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563. Tel: 866-730-6735; Fax: 630-649-6700; e-mail: relmidwest@learningpt.org; Web site: http://www.learningpt.org/rel/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 45
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, Federal Legislation, Educational Improvement, Federal Programs, Academic Achievement, School Districts, State Departments of Education, Educational Indicators, Profiles, Accountability, Comparative Analysis
Geographic Terms: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: No Child Left Behind Act 2001
Abstract: Like other states across the country, the seven states in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) have been striving to meet the performance targets established under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The states vary in how they identify underperforming districts and schools using the NCLB criteria. This report responds to requests from policymakers and leaders in the Midwest Region for statistical profiles of districts in improvement within the region's states. The report addresses three questions: (1) What is the prevalence of districts in improvement in each Midwest Region state under the NCLB Act and under states' own accountability systems?; (2) How do district characteristics (size, locale, poverty, student race/ethnicity, students with special needs, expenditures, and revenue sources) compare for districts in improvement and not in improvement under the NCLB Act?; and (3) Are districts' designations of in improvement consistent with their schools' designations as in need of improvement, and do districts and schools perform similarly on NCLB performance criteria? These topics are investigated using publicly available data provided by state education agencies, the U.S. Department of Education (2010), and the U.S. Census Bureau (2009). The data are summarized to describe conditions at the beginning of the 2009/10 school year. The following are key findings for each question. On the prevalence of districts in improvement in each Midwest Region state under the NCLB Act: (1) Most school districts (85 percent) in the seven states were not in improvement; (2) States varied widely in how many districts were in improvement: Michigan had one district in improvement and Wisconsin had two, while Minnesota had more than half (51 percent) of its districts in improvement; (3) The proportion of students enrolled in districts in improvement also varied widely, from 6 percent in Michigan to 81 percent in Minnesota; and (4) The largest school district in each state had been in improvement for several years, with some districts in improvement for as long as six years. In states with their own accountability systems, the state systems identified additional districts in need of support. For example, Indiana's own system identified 100 districts for improvement that were not identified under the federal system. On a comparison of districts in improvement and those not in improvement: (1) Rural districts account for half the districts (52 percent) in these seven states, but few rural districts were in improvement (7 percent); (2) Except in Michigan and Wisconsin, the median percentage of White students was 60-90 percent in districts in improvement but exceeded 90 percent in districts not in improvement; (3) The median percentage of students with disabilities varied little across states or between districts in improvement and districts not in improvement; (4) In six states, the median per student expenditure was higher in districts in improvement than in districts not in improvement; and (5) In each state, the median percentage of funding from federal sources was higher in districts in improvement than in districts not in improvement; the median percentage of funding from local sources was lower in districts in improvement in all states except Minnesota. On the consistency of district and school accountability designations: (1) Slightly more than a quarter of districts in improvement included no schools in improvement, and slightly less than a quarter of districts not in improvement included schools in improvement; and (2) The academic performance of students with disabilities contributed most frequently to differences in adequate yearly progress determinations between districts and their schools. In more racially/ethnically diverse districts, the performance of minority students also contributed to these differences. Data sources and methods are appended. (Contains 2 boxes, 4 figures, 2 maps, 24 tables and 12 notes.) [For "Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121," see ED532665.]
Abstractor: ERIC
Number of References: 61
IES Funded: Yes
IES Publication: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=274
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: ED532663
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED532663
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED532663
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Electronic Resource
PubTypeId: electronicResource
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+der+Ploeg%2C+Arie%22">van der Ploeg, Arie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wan%2C+Yinmei%22">Wan, Yinmei</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Garcia%2C+Alicia+N%2E%22">Garcia, Alicia N.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wraight%2C+Sara%22">Wraight, Sara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Matthew%22">Burke, Matthew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Norbury%2C+Heather%22">Norbury, Heather</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerdeman%2C+R%2E+Dean%22">Gerdeman, R. Dean</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regional+Educational+Laboratory+Midwest+%28ED%29%22">Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest (ED)</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Regional+Educational+Laboratory+Midwest%22"><i>Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest</i></searchLink>. 2012.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Available from: Learning Point Associates. 1120 East Diehl Road Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563. Tel: 866-730-6735; Fax: 630-649-6700; e-mail: relmidwest@learningpt.org; Web site: http://www.learningpt.org/rel/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 45
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Numerical/Quantitative Data<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Improvement%22">Educational Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Programs%22">Federal Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Departments+of+Education%22">State Departments of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Indicators%22">Educational Indicators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Profiles%22">Profiles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Illinois%22">Illinois</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indiana%22">Indiana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Iowa%22">Iowa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Michigan%22">Michigan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minnesota%22">Minnesota</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ohio%22">Ohio</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Wisconsin%22">Wisconsin</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22No+Child+Left+Behind+Act+2001%22">No Child Left Behind Act 2001</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Like other states across the country, the seven states in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) have been striving to meet the performance targets established under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The states vary in how they identify underperforming districts and schools using the NCLB criteria. This report responds to requests from policymakers and leaders in the Midwest Region for statistical profiles of districts in improvement within the region's states. The report addresses three questions: (1) What is the prevalence of districts in improvement in each Midwest Region state under the NCLB Act and under states' own accountability systems?; (2) How do district characteristics (size, locale, poverty, student race/ethnicity, students with special needs, expenditures, and revenue sources) compare for districts in improvement and not in improvement under the NCLB Act?; and (3) Are districts' designations of in improvement consistent with their schools' designations as in need of improvement, and do districts and schools perform similarly on NCLB performance criteria? These topics are investigated using publicly available data provided by state education agencies, the U.S. Department of Education (2010), and the U.S. Census Bureau (2009). The data are summarized to describe conditions at the beginning of the 2009/10 school year. The following are key findings for each question. On the prevalence of districts in improvement in each Midwest Region state under the NCLB Act: (1) Most school districts (85 percent) in the seven states were not in improvement; (2) States varied widely in how many districts were in improvement: Michigan had one district in improvement and Wisconsin had two, while Minnesota had more than half (51 percent) of its districts in improvement; (3) The proportion of students enrolled in districts in improvement also varied widely, from 6 percent in Michigan to 81 percent in Minnesota; and (4) The largest school district in each state had been in improvement for several years, with some districts in improvement for as long as six years. In states with their own accountability systems, the state systems identified additional districts in need of support. For example, Indiana's own system identified 100 districts for improvement that were not identified under the federal system. On a comparison of districts in improvement and those not in improvement: (1) Rural districts account for half the districts (52 percent) in these seven states, but few rural districts were in improvement (7 percent); (2) Except in Michigan and Wisconsin, the median percentage of White students was 60-90 percent in districts in improvement but exceeded 90 percent in districts not in improvement; (3) The median percentage of students with disabilities varied little across states or between districts in improvement and districts not in improvement; (4) In six states, the median per student expenditure was higher in districts in improvement than in districts not in improvement; and (5) In each state, the median percentage of funding from federal sources was higher in districts in improvement than in districts not in improvement; the median percentage of funding from local sources was lower in districts in improvement in all states except Minnesota. On the consistency of district and school accountability designations: (1) Slightly more than a quarter of districts in improvement included no schools in improvement, and slightly less than a quarter of districts not in improvement included schools in improvement; and (2) The academic performance of students with disabilities contributed most frequently to differences in adequate yearly progress determinations between districts and their schools. In more racially/ethnically diverse districts, the performance of minority students also contributed to these differences. Data sources and methods are appended. (Contains 2 boxes, 4 figures, 2 maps, 24 tables and 12 notes.) [For "Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121," see ED532665.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 61
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Publication
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=274" linkWindow="_blank">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=274</link>
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED532663
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED532663
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 45
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Departments of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Indicators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Profiles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Illinois
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indiana
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Iowa
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Michigan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minnesota
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ohio
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wisconsin
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: No Child Left Behind Act 2001
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Characteristics of Midwest Region School Districts Identified for Improvement. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 121
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest (ED)
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van der Ploeg, Arie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wan, Yinmei
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Garcia, Alicia N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wraight, Sara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burke, Matthew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Norbury, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerdeman, R. Dean
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest
              Type: main
ResultId 1