US Educational Reform
Download
Report
Transcript US Educational Reform
Strategies for Enhancing
Education and Accountability of
Schools in the U.S.
Examples From CRESST
Eva L. Baker
UCLA CRESST, USA
International Conference by Presidential Committee
September 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 instruction
Collecting performance data
Analyzing strengths and weaknesses
Selecting or determining and using re-teaching
strategies
Repeating until success attained
Sanctions for failure to meet targets
Sanctions 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 degree
Be State certified or pass State licensing
exam (alternative routes, outside of
education schools)
Not teaching on temporary waiver
Demonstrate 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 secret
So most teachers use test practice exercises
States vary in number and clarity of
standards, quality of tests, and stringency
of cut scores
Too many standards, inadequately
measured
NCLB Concerns
(Cont’d)
Focus on AYP has wrongly become main
issue
Research on stability of classification and
AYP options, including value-added
No 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 crosssectional 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 retirements
Explore 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 election
Research support is falling, focused on
program evaluation
Longitudinal data and longer term studies
are needed linking instruction,
performance, and student and teacher
backgrounds
Eva L. Baker
Voice:
Fax:
Email:
Web:
310.206.1530
310.267.0152
[email protected]
www.cresst.org