strategies for enhancing education and accountability of schools in the u.s. examples from cresst...
TRANSCRIPT
Strategies for Enhancing Education and Accountability of
Schools in the U.S.
Examples From CRESSTEva L. Baker
UCLA CRESST, USA
International Conference by Presidential CommitteeSeptember 4, 2006
Goals for Today
To describe the theory and background of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
To describe the key goals and provisions of NCLB
To discuss NCLB impact, areas of continuing challenge and short-term change
NCLB Context
In the U.S., Federal programs enacted to close the gap for disadvantaged students (1966) led to a two-tier system. Only disadvantaged children were systematically tested. Local and State funds depended on numbers of continuing disadvantaged students
1983 A Nation at Risk published In 1989, Governors of States decided they
needed a system of goals and linked assessments to improve performance
NCLB Context: Theory of Action for Standards-Based Reform
Theory of action (Tyler, systems theory, training) Identifying goals and standards and targets Building concomitant capacity Designing and delivering instructionCollecting performance data Analyzing strengths and weaknessesSelecting or determining and using re-teaching
strategies Repeating until success attainedSanctions for failure to meet targetsSanctions unless “all” children are the focus
NCLB Context: Legal
In a law suit about tests brought by a teachers’ union, the State of Arkansas prevailed. In an earlier court case (Florida 1974), the State lost on the premise that they did not provide all children with opportunity to learn the test material
NCLB Context: National Council
In 1991, the President appointed a Council (I was a member) of Federal and State politicians (Senators and Congressmen, Governors), educators, and researchers
NCLB Context: National Council (Cont’d)
The Council report supported the idea of national standards if they were voluntary. Assessments were to be the prerogative of each State
A new organization was to review State efforts
NCLB Context: National Council (Cont’d)
New methodological work was to address disparities among standards, tests, and results for States
Examples included validity of cut scores, sensitivity to instruction, measures of opportunity to learn, stability of performance, value-added models
NCLB Context: Council Questions
Will States accept common provisions of standards-based reform?
Will the system be nationally or State developed? Will standards be national? Or will standards be
unique to States with a common process used in each State?
How will quality or comparability of standards in State systems be determined?
Who approves the standards? Will there be national tests?
NCLB Context: IASA
New laws were enacted in 1992 based on the Council report. In 1994, Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) required new policies: All children were to be tested in 4th, 8th, and 10th grades. States were to first develop content standards (curriculum goals) and then to develop tests, both with government assistance and quality oversight
Great efforts were made in preparing national standards by professional groups in mathematics, science, history, etc., to give the States help
NCLB Context: IASA (Cont’d)
In IASA, standards, tests, targets and methods of improvement were State options
No actual quality review of standards or tests occurred, nor were there consequences for States that did not comply or meet standards (because of change in Congress)
NCLB Context: IASA and Tests
Financial support was available to help States prepare tests. Performance tests (open-ended measures) were advocated by many. Most tests used a matrix sampling approach so individual scores were rare
In 1997, President Clinton proposed voluntary national tests, and work began on them and an evaluation by the National Research Council (NRC). These tests were prohibited subsequently by Congress
NCLB Context: Assessment Use
In 1999, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and the NRC reviews about voluntary national testing made clear that high-stakes student decisions should not be based on one measure. Validity rested on purpose and use of inferences from results
Cost and technical issues slowed down performance-based testing
NCLB Enactment and Goals
Signed into law 2002 Major education focus for improvement Builds on IASA: standards, tests, and
accountability Goals:
By 2014, all students will meet States’ standards of proficiency in math, language, and science
Gaps among different subgroups will close
NCLB Provisions: Flexibility
Choice of academic standards Choice and difficulty of test (buy, make, contract) Choice of proficiency level Pattern of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) over
the years from 2005-2014 Choice of professional development Choice of commercial curriculum materials Type of English language development test and
rules for deciding students have acquired English Implementation of teacher quality provisions
NCLB Provisions: Minimums for Teacher Quality
Have a Bachelor’s degreeBe State certified or pass State licensing
exam (alternative routes, outside of education schools)
Not teaching on temporary waiverDemonstrate competency in subject
matter
NCLB Provisions: Testing
Individual level testing for all children Grades 3-8 and once during high school in reading and math by the 2005-2006 school year
Science tests must be administered once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 by the 2007-2008 school year
Tests are to meet validity and reliability standards
NCLB Provisions: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
States prepare plan so that an increased percentage of students achieve a proficient level for every cycle. This level is usually set by school, based upon its initial level. May be separate for each subject or a composite
Proficiency levels usually below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Subgroups in a school (disadvantaged, ethnic and language subgroups) must each reach school’s AYP target
95% of the whole school and 95% of each subgroup must take required tests
Data may be true longitudinal (following a child) or cross-sectional year to year (3rd grade 06—3rd grade 07) comparisons
Consequences of Missing AYP
Year 1 Year 2
Year 3 Year 4
Year 5
1. “Watch list”
2. Needs improvement: technical assistance from State; intra-District transfers; District pays for transportation
3. Eligible students tutoring
4. Corrective action: replace staff, new curriculum, professional development, decrease management authority, add outside expert, extend school day or year, restructure
5. Restructure: charter school, replace all staff, contract with private management, or turn over to State
Why NCLB Happened
Built on a consensus of politicians 10+ years of prior discussion and statutes U.S. unhappy with quality Something for everyone Difficult to be against improving performance Emphasis on closing the gap Administration did not deviate from message
NCLB Concerns
Standards and tests are without a standard curriculum or syllabus and tests are often secretSo most teachers use test practice exercises
States vary in number and clarity of standards, quality of tests, and stringency of cut scoresToo many standards, inadequately
measured
NCLB Concerns (Cont’d)
Focus on AYP has wrongly become main issueResearch on stability of classification and
AYP options, including value-addedNo comparability measures except National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) among States
NCLB Concerns (Cont’d)
Methods of “aligning” State standards, instruction and tests inadequate since no syllabus. Great differences among schools, Districts and States
AYP computations (based on 95% participation and achievement by each subgroup) in a cross-sectional mode increase likelihood of failing targets
Few tests in use have adequate vertical comparability to allow longitudinal inferences
NCLB Concerns (Cont’d)
Failing schools will encourage private education
Good teachers will leave schools with problems in performance
Members of subgroups will be ostracized
Until recently, special needs children would not succeed
High school exit exam is often used as NCLB measure, so failure means no diploma
NCLB Concerns (Cont’d)
Mobility in urban settings makes school performance difficult to monitor
Focus on test results has resulted in lock-step curriculum, with no time to implement improvements
Special problems for limited English speaking students
NCLB Results
Divided support
Improved performance among young children
Attention paid to low economic students
No improvement at middle or high school
Some additional help from Federal government
Examples of Positive Publicity
Celebrating Making AYP After focused efforts by State and local school
officials, two Arizona elementary schools were able to reach their adequate yearly progress marks after four consecutive years of falling short
Nebraska Students Write On Added emphasis on writing in Nebraska schools,
as part of the effort to meet the No Child Left Behind Act requirements, has led to improvement in writing among all students, including those in subgroups
Positive Publicity (Cont’d)
Broad effort closes Grade 3 achievement gap By channeling the efforts of teachers, community
members, and parents, staff members at Maryland's Viers Mill Elementary School were able to close the achievement gap in reading and math at the third-grade level
NCLB Research = CRESST
Helping teachers to assess students in classes
Helping teachers to give in-class feedback
Helping teachers to develop alternative or back-up teaching strategies
Motivating students for test performance
NCLB Research Problems
Developing better assessments that can be used economically
Developing approaches to measure classroom practice in a scalable way
Providing out-of-school instructional support
Rapid preparation to replace retirementsExplore teacher incentive systems
NCLB Research Opportunities
Develop stronger methodology to measure growth and attribute performance
Develop better indices of stability of performance
Counter lack of validity of assessments for multiple purposes
Assure students can perform outside of narrow test confines (transfer and generalize)
Develop adaptive approaches to instruction using computers for high-level learning
What Is Next?
NCLB to be reauthorized and could be changed
Direction will depend on electionResearch support is falling, focused on
program evaluationLongitudinal data and longer term studies
are needed linking instruction, performance, and student and teacher backgrounds
