Examining the Assumptions Underlying the NCLB Federal Accountability Policy on School Improvement

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 76-88

  Forte, Ellen ^a  

^a EdCount LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950907314     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461521003704738     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2005). The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 782-785.
3. Archer, J. (2006). Proposed grants for improvement highlight key new role for states. Education Week, 25(24), 1.
4. Board on Testing and Assessment. (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments (J. A. Koenig, & L. F. Bachman, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5. Carlson Le Floch, K., Boyle, A., & Bowles Therriault, S. (2008a). Help wanted: State capacity for school improvement. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
6. Carlson Le Floch, K., Boyle, A., & Bowles Therriault, S. (2008b). State systems of support under NCLB: Design components and quality considerations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
7. Carlson, D. (2006). Focusing state educational accountability systems: Four methods of judging school quality and progress. Dover, NH: The Center for Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/Dale020402.pdf
8. Center on Education Policy. (2007). Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind? Washington, DC: Author.
9. Center on Education Policy. (2008). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Author.
10. Center on Education Policy. (2009). Is the emphasis on "proficiency" short- changing higher- and lower-achieving students? Washington, DC: Author.
11. Chicago Public Schools. (2007). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of year 3 in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Author.
12. Choi, K., Goldschmidt, P., & Yamashiro, K. (2006). Exploring models of school performance: From theory to practice. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
13. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). Consortium for School Improvement policy brief: State support to schools in need of improvement. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SSSNI FINAL.pdf
14. Council of Chief State School Officers, (2009). Schools identified for improvement, or not making AYP, by state: 2006-7. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Schools%20identified%20for%20improvement%202006-07%20AYP.pdf
15. Cross, C. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16. DiBiase, R. W. (2005). ECS policy brief: State involvement in school re- structuring under No Child Left Behind in the 2004-05 school year. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/28/6428.pdf
17. Dwyer, C, with Bormand, J., Cevoen, L., Fafard, M. B., Frankel, S., Harvell, C., & Zarlengo, P. (2005). Leadership capacities for a changing environment: state and district responses to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
18. Education Commission of the States. (2002). State intervention in low- performing schools and school districts. Denver, CO: Author.
19. The Education Trust. (2004). Measured progress: Achievement rises and gaps narrow, but slowly. Washington, DC: Author.
20. The Education Trust. (2005). Stalled in secondary: a look at student achievement since the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
21. Elam, S. (1995). How America views its schools: The PDK/Gallup polls, 1969-1994. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
22. Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low- performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-629.
23. Forte, E. (2007, November). Assessment and accountability post-NCLB: The next generation. Invited keynote address for the Annual Conference of the California Educational Research Association, Dana Point, CA.
24. Forte, E., & Erpenbach, W. J. (2006). Statewide educational accountability under the NCLB Act-a report on 2006 amendments to state plans. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
25. Forte Fast, E., & Erpenbach, W. J. (2004). Revisiting statewide educational accountability under NCLB: An examination of states' initial requests for amendment under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
26. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London, UK: Routledge Farmer.
27. Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36, 268-278.
28. Garland, L. (2003). Navigating treacherous waters: A state takeover hand- book. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
29. Gong, B. (2002). Designing school accountability systems: Toward a frame- work and process. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
30. Gong, B. (2006, April). Valid OR reliable?: Subgroups in NCLB's AYP. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
31. Haertel, E. H. (2003). Including students with disabilities and English language learners in NAEP: Effect sof differential inclusion rates on accuracy and interpretability of findings. [Paper commissioned and prepared by the National Assessment Governing Board]. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED500430)
32. Hannaway, J., & Woodroffe, N. (2003) Policy instruments in education. Review of Research in Education, 27, 1-24.
33. Hill, P. T., & Celio, M. B. (1998). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
34. Hill, R., & DePascale, C. A. (2003, June). Adequate yearly progress under NCLB: Reliability considerations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/NCMEconf RHCD03.pdf
35. Ho, A. (2007). Discrepancies between score trends from NAEP and state tests: A scale-invariant perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(4), 11-20.
36. Jennings, J., Stark Rentner, D., & Kober, N. (2002). A new federal role in education. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
37. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using impre- cise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16,91-114.
38. Kerins, T., Perlman, C., & Langdon, J. (2009). Results from the statewide systems of support survey: Five case study states. In T. Kerins, C.Perlman, & S. Redding (Eds.), Coherence in statewide systems of support (pp. 47-92). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
39. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2004). Does NCLB provide good choices for students in low performing schools? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
40. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
41. Kopriva, R. (2008). Improving testing for English language learners. New York City, NY: Routledge.
42. Koretz, D. (2008a). A measured approach. American Educator, Fall, 8-39.
43. Koretz, D. (2008b). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Koretz, D., & Barron, S. (1998). The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky instructional results information system (KIRIS). Washington, DC: RAND.
45. Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
46. Lee, J.(2007).The testing gap:Scientific trials of test-driven school laccountability systems for excellence and equity. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
47. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
48. Linn, R. L. (2005a). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/
49. Linn, R. L. (2005b). Fixing the NCLB accountability system (CRESST Policy Brief 8). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
50. Linn, R. L. (2006). Validity of inferences from test-based educational accountability systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19(1-2), 5-15.
51. Linn, R. L. (2008a). Methodological issues in achieving school accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 699-711.
52. Linn, R. L. (2008b). Toward a more effective definition of Adequate Yearly Progress. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability,equity, andschoolreform (pp.27-42).Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin.
53. Linn, R. L., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (CSE Report No. 567). Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED467440)
54. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29-36.
55. Lusi, S. F. (1997).The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
56. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D. & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools:"Testing"the"theory of action."Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113-132.
57. Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of educationreformsonschoolcapacity:Insightsfromstudiesofhigh-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18 631-660.
58. Marion, S., White, C., Carlson, D., Erpenbach, W. J., Rabinowitz, S., & Sheinker, J. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in de- termining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/ content/pdfs/AYPpaper.pdf
59. Martineau, J. (2006). Distorting value added: The use of longitudinal, vertically scaled student achievement data for growth-based, value-added accountability. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(1), 35-62.
60. Massel, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity for education: progress and continuing challenges (Research Report Series RR-41). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
61. Mathis, W. (2009). NCLB's ultimate restructuring alternatives: Do they improve the quality of education? Boulder, CO, and Temper, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/nclb-ultimate-restructuring
62. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
63. Minnici, A., & Hill, D. (2007). Educational architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
64. Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
65. Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G.L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement - and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364.
66. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48), 1-30.
67. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). NAEP inclusion policy. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion. asp
68. Popham, W. J. (2004, July). Ruminations regarding NCLB's most malignant provision: Adequate Yearly Progress. [Paper prepared for the Center on Education Policy Forum] Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument &documentid=216&documentFormatId=3509
69. Public Law 107-110-Jan. 8, 2002 115 Stat. 1499.
70. Raudenbush, S. (2004). Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we mea- sure school improvement? The Ninth Annual William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG9.pdf
71. Redding, S. (2007). An evolution in American education. In S. Redding & H. Wahlberg (Eds.), Handbook on statewide systems of support (pp. 57-74). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
72. Reville, S. P. (2004). High standards + high stakes = high achievement in Massachusetts. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 591.
73. Reville, S.P., Coggins, C., & Candon, J. (2005). Reaching capacity: A blueprint for the state role in improving low performing schools and districts. Boston, MA: Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy.
74. Rhim, L., Hassel, B., & Redding, S. (2007). State role in supporting school improvement. In S. Redding & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook on statewide systems of support (pp. 21-56). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
75. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2006). The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 41-56.
76. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2007). The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1), 33-48.
77. Ross, S., Harmon, J., & Wong, K. (2009). Improving SES quality state approval, monitoring, and evaluation of SES providers. Retrieved from http: //www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Improving%20SES%20Quality.pdf
78. Ryan, K., & Shepard, L. (2008). The future of test-based educational accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.
79. Simpson, M. A., Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2005). Effects of minimum cell sizes and confidence interval sizes for special education sub- groups on school-level AYP determinations. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/MinNCI BGSMMS05.pdf
80. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform (CPRE Policy Brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics.
81. Stark Retner, D., Scott, C., Kober, N., Chudowksy, N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S. & Zabala, D. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
82. Stecher, B. M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L. S., Marsh, J. A., Robyn, A. E., McCombs, J.S., & Naftel, S. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004-2006. Washington, DC: RAND.
83. Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 526-556.
84. Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
85. Toch, T. (2001, November). Bush's big test. Washington Monthly. Available from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
86. Unger, C., Lane, B., Cutler, E., Lee, S., Whitney, J., Arruda, E., & Silva, M. (2008). How can state education agencies support district im- provement? A conversation amongst educational leaders, researchers, and policy actors. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
87. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Title I-Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, Final regulations, 34 CFR Part 200. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html
88. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). LEA and school improvement: Non- regulatory guidance. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ guid/schoolimprovementguid.pdf
89. U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Evaluation of the 2005-06 growth model pilot program. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/ lead/account/growthmodel/gmeval0109.doc
90. U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII - Title I school choice and supplemental education services: final report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/nclb-choice-ses-final/choice-ses- final.pdf
91. U.S. Department of Education. (2009c). Title I implementation: Up-date on recent evaluation findings. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ rschstat/eval/disadv/titlei-implementation/titlei-implementation.doc
92. Vernez, G., Naftel, S., Ross, K.E., Carlson Le Floch, K., Beighley, C., Gill, B.... O'Day, J. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII - Title I school choice and supplemental educational services: Final report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
93. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., & Lockwood, J. R. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I-Title I schools choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, DC: RAND.
94. Zimmer, R. W., Gill, B. P., Razquin, P., Booker, K., Lockwood, J. R., Vernez, G., & O'Day, J. (2007). Do Title I school choice and supplemental edu- cational services affect student achievement? Washington, DC: RAND.