Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The NCLB Act (2002) stresses the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics of performance. The Open Group (2003) in defining the need for integration says that the data captured in SIF "are subsequently moved through state information systems to be used.
Federal, state and local dependence on the quality and availability of education data to inform decision-making has never been higher as funding to the school level based on NCLB benchmarks and measure adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements" (Open Group 2003).
All of these many requirements for reporting the performance of learning programs upward through district, municipal, and state and federal levels is to benchmark the effectiveness of teaching programs, adherence to and compliance with NCLB measures of success, and ultimately to define which schools will continue to receive state and federal funding for their programs, or conversely, those schools that will be audited as a result of their performance being under the minimum requirements defined. Clearly the role of the SIF (2007) and resulting architectural definitions of this standard including the extensive use of XML and other open standards for systems integration (SIF Architecture 2007) all underscore a very critical bottom line for any school and its associated district. The bottom line is that investments in integration using the SIF Specification as the framework yields significant returns in the most critical, strategic areas of a company. These include the ability to gain greater funding due to compliance with NCLB requirements, greater agility and use of information to serve students, teachers and parents and provide greater accuracy of...
Ultimately the use of the SIF Framework puts each school in a position of controlling their future by having a thorough yet agile it architecture and series of processes for better managing student performance data in addition to being in compliance with state and federal reporting requirements. As has often been said of NCLB, the higher the learning performance, the higher the funding, the greater the freedom and autonomy schools have.
References
NCLB (2002) - the White House Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind Act. White House press announcement. Accessed from the Internet on August 12, 2007 from location: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108.html
Open Group (2003) - White paper titled, "The SIF Plan: Advance Education through Interoperability." Published November, 2002. Updated April, 2003. San Francisco, CA. Accessed from the Internet on August 11, 2007 from location: http://www.opengroup.org/comm/case-studies/SIF-casestudy.pdf
SIF Architecture (2007) - Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) Association. Presentation of the architectural elements of the SIF standard. Titled "SIF NCLB State Architecture and Community of Practice" accessed on August 12, 2007 from location: http://sif.edreform.net/download/102/1-6%20SIF%20NCLB%20State%20CoP.ppt
SIF (2007) - Why Interoperability. Description of the Zone integration server in the SIF networking topology. Schools Interoperability Framework Association website content. Accessed from the Internet on August 12, 2007 from location:
http://www.sifinfo.org/why-interoperability.asp
In suburban areas, on the other hand, the economic opportunities are diverse and the population is less dense. Here parents are motivated to educate their child and the child gets higher individual attention from the teachers than those in the urban areas where population density is very high (Broomhall and Johnson, 1994; and Hanson and Ginsburg, 1988). Since educational aspirations of parents, students and teachers differ by population density
Most states have provisions somewhat similar to that of the NCLB, where funding to districts and specific institutions is specifically allocated and comes with certain requirements (Galvin & Robins 2000; U.S. DOE 2009). Advantages of receiving funding at the state level are increased localization and attention to differences in districts (U.S. DOE 2009). Disadvantages, however, are that the state is subject to even more extreme budgetary and taxation fluctuations,
LCFF Position Statement School funding structure and allocation is something that is very controversial. It summons discussions and specters of class warfare, the haves vs. The have-not's equity in opportunity, equity in outcomes and many other hot-button topics in the political, cultural and public lexicons. The current school funding structure in the state of California is to be jettisoned in favor of the new Local Control Funding Formula, whereby funding for
Special Education Given the diverse needs and universal education needs of students with exceptionalities, what is one of the most significant fiduciary responsibilities of the school leader? Why are these significant? It is important to note, from the onset, that the school leader oversees not only student placement, but also staff assignment and management of the education al programs of schools. In general, school leaders in a special education setting have a
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the school funding approaches of the state of Illinois and the District of Columbia. It shows that in Illinois there is a far greater problem of how to achieve a more equitable distribution of funds, though the state is currently setting a course to try to make this happen with its evidence-based model funding formula recently passed this year. In DC on the other hand,
The trial lasted seven months and Justice Leland Degrasse rendered his decision, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475 on January 10, 2001, in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the state to ensure that all public schools provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to their students." (Hunter, 2004) Entered, as part of this decision was a "costing-out study as the threshold task in developing a new school funding system." (Hunter, 2004)