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