Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004-2006 (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper is based on data collected from the national Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE). Both the survey and case study data indicate that most schools and districts were taking action to implement the requirements of NCLB and taking specific steps to raise the achievement of all their students. Schools were engaged in a range of improvement strategies, and in many areas, those schools continuously identified for improvement from 2001-02 through 2003-04 were more likely to be taking steps to promote school improvement. Similarly, almost all districts were providing identified schools with some types of assistance on school improvement tasks. Both school and district activities showed little change over the three years of the study. By 2003-04, more states, but still not all, were providing the kinds of assistance to identified schools required under NCLB (e.g., 36 states in 2003-04 compared with 23 states in 2002-03 had school sup...
Applied Measurement in Education, 2003
Most states are implementing statewide assessment programs that are being used for high-stakes purposes. Some of these assessments involve performance-based tasks that are assumed not only to serve as motivators for improving student achievement and learning, but also to encourage instructional strategies and techniques in the classroom that are more consistent with reform-oriented educational outcomes. Given these high expectations, more comprehensive and direct evidence for the consequences of the assessments needs to be gathered. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between (a) changes in the scores from the Maryland State Performance Assessment Program from 1993 to 1998 and (b) classroom instruction and assessment practices, student learning and motivation, students' and teachers' beliefs about and attitudes toward the assessment, and a school characteristic. Several factors from each of these dimensions were found to explain a significant amount of variability in school performance over time using growth models. The role that assessment and accountability has played during various periods of educational reform since the 1950s was reviewed by Linn (2000). Traditionally, assessments have been used as agents for change, and, more recently, to hold schools accountable to state learning outcome standards through the use of rewards and sanctions. Linn cited several reasons for the "great appeal of assessment to policymakers as an agent of reform" (p. 4): relatively low cost compared Requests for reprints should be sent to Clement A
2000
In the national search for ways of raising academic achievement, there seems to be widespread agreement that a "standards-based" education system (National Commission on Education Standards and Testing, 1992; is the key to improvement. Core features of such a system, ones that most states and many school districts have now embraced in rhetoric and the beginnings of practice, are content and performance standards for each school discipline, along with assessments aligned to the standards. Standards and assessments are viewed as the foundation stones of a system in which educators determine the means by which they will meet publicly established expectations, but in which states and school districts may establish various systems of public accountability for meeting them. It is widely agreed that standards, assessments, and accountability can raise achievement only if they motivate and enable better teaching-presumably the result of curriculum that is aligned with the standards and assessments, along with improved professional development for teachers and administrators. There is less agreement, however, about who should-indeed, who has the right to-establish and monitor teaching and professional development programs. Some believe that approaches to teaching, curriculum, and professional development for teachers should be left to very local professional decision makers, individual schools, or, in an extreme view, individual teachers. Others believe that a standards-based strategy for raising achievement calls
School and Classroom Practices During Two Years of Education Reform in Washington State
2000
In 1999 and 2000 RAND researchers surveyed Washington state principals and teachers to understand how the state's education reforms, which included standards and assessments, were being enacted at the school level. Teachers and principals reported that they understood the reform and were making changes to support it. However, the changes were not uniform, and they were occurring gradually. The teacher surveys, which focused on curriculum and instruction in mathematics and writing, revealed changes in the way these subjects were taught that suggested the state tests were more salient to the teachers than the state standards. Furthermore, there was a mixed pattern of relationships between reported teaching practices and school-level test scores.
This paper explores what lessons we can learn from the experiences of states that instituted NCLB-like accountability systems prior to 2001 (here called firstgeneration accountability systems). We looked at the experiences of three smaller states (Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina), four larger ones (California, Florida, New York, Texas), and two large districts (Chicago and Philadelphia). We analyzed evaluative reports and policy documents as well as interviews with state officials and researchers. We condensed the material into eight lessons: sanctions are not the fallback solution; no single strategy has been universally successful; staging should be handled with flexibility; intensive capacity building is necessary; a comprehensive set of strategies seems promising; relationship-building needs to
Planning and Changing, 2004
No policy has created more discussion among educators in recent history than the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB was ostensibly designed to change the culture of schools and improve student achievement, especially the achievement of America's "neediest children" (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Although NCLB is a relatively new policy, some states had similar policies in place prior to NCLB. For instance, Florida established its test-based accountability system in the late 1990s to hold students and educators accountable by measuring student achievement and school quality (Bush, 2003; Florida Department of Education, 2001, 2002a). Proponents of these types of test-based accountability systems report that such accountability is needed to raise student achievement (Evers & Walberg, 2002; Raymond & Hanushek, 2003). Opponents, however, claim that testing hinders learning and that there are many negative consequences associated with testing (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003). In fact, educators have often been the most outspoken against the new state accountability systems. For instance, Jones and Egley (2004) surveyed 708 Florida teachers and found that most teachers (80%) believed that Florida's testing program was not taking schools in the right direction. The reasons teachers provided included the improper use and accuracy of test scores, as well as negative effects on curriculum, teaching and learning, and student and teacher motivation. Compared to teachers, principals tend to perceive testing and accountability programs more favorably. For example, Ladd and Zelli (2002) found that about 60% of the North Carolina principals surveyed agreed with the overall goals of their state's accountability program. In Florida, George (2001) interviewed 50 principals and 25 central office personnel to find out what strategies they were using to raise student achievement. He found that the accountability system had caused principals to try a variety of strategies, including setting standards-focused goals, engaging school personnel, using school achievement data, strengthening professional development, aligning the curriculum with the state standards, increasing time on the subjects tested, choosing instructional materials that support the state standards, building interdisciplinary teams, using incentives to motivate students, and spending more time as instructional leaders. Despite these positive changes, George reported that about half of the administrators found the state's testing program to be "deeply flawed and damaging to a developmentally appropriate education for their students" (2001, p. 32). While test scores may rise, these administrators argued that academic quality may be going down. The results of these studies indicate that testing and accountability programs can lead to some positive changes. Even so, the administrators in George's (2001) study reported serious concerns about these types of programs. We were interested in whether Florida administrators thought that there was anything that could be done to improve Florida's testing program to reduce or eliminate the types of concerns raised in George's study. To find