In each of these cases, policy makers did not use research to support their decisions. For example, most schools use high-stakes, test-based accountability systems. NCLB now dominates the educational landscape of every state, yet, it was largely a politically driven supported by both sides of the isle, however policy decision without evidence on which to base this crucial decision which now is the law of the land.
NCLB is up for reauthorization in the Congress. Most likely it will be reauthorized with some tweaks put forth by the new Congress. And this is unfortunate. What is needed a paradigm shift. Department of Education in which it was stated:. The report strongly supports rigorous evaluations of programs funded by the Race to the Top initiative.
The report also cautions against using the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal assessment that helps measure overall U. Emphasis mine. The letter did not effect the RTTP program, and indeed, the criteria used to evaluate state proposals made it clear that student test scores should be used as a means to evaluate teachers and schools.
Will we see a change in educational reform? Will the momentum of the high-stakes, common core standards dominate education for the foreseeable future? Could a paradigm shift emerge from the discontent that is beginning to make itself known?
The kind of change that many argue is needed is one that is grounded in local initiatives, and educational research. This would result in the experimentation of many approaches to school improvement, especially if relationships between universities and schools are encouraged, and the means for future sustainability achieved. Oddly, in our democratic society, just the opposite is happening in the sense that there is this drive for a single set of standards in each subject area, and for national assessments of student achievement.
It is possible, but leaders would have to emerge to lead the way with examples that work in practice. Under NCLB in each state, the process for determining passing scores was controlled by state departments of education, with parents and state legislators participating in the determination of passing scores by means of an open vote. For CC-based tests, there seems to be a non-transparent process controlled by both state departments of education and the test consortia, with possible oversight by the USDE.
While parents and others may be included, committee membership may be controlled by both state DoEs and the test consortia, with no participation in a vote permitted to parents and state legislators. It is not clear how the passing score for all states will be determined and if there will be state-specific scores.
The law also requires states to identify schools and school districts that are not making enough progress and follow a step-by-step process for either turning those schools around or closing them.
The law makes its academic standards and assessment requirements a condition of receiving a federal Title I grant. Title I grants go through states to local school districts to help educate disadvantaged children. Race to the Top Grant. The RTTT scoring rubric awards states that apply for a grant a maximum of points based on how well they meet the grant's various criteria.
Points are awarded in six areas with many subareas. Winning states must use the grant money to implement the programs and plans detailed in their grant applications. The U. Phase 1 applications were due January 19, and awards were issued on March 29, Forty-one states applied for grants in the first round.
Connecticut finished 25 th and was not a finalist. Phase 2 applications were due June 1, , with awards expected in September Thirty-five states, including Connecticut, and the District of Columbia have applied for Phase 2 grants.
There is no set number of state awards and no set grant amounts. The USDOE has issued nonbinding guidance for grant ranges by dividing states into five categories based on student population. Grants must be expended over four years starting from the award date. One of the key features of the NCLB law is the requirement that each state adopt challenging content and achievement standards in math, reading or language arts, and science to be used to carry out the law ' s assessment and school improvement requirements.
States must apply the same standards to all schools and children in the state. Content standards must 1 specify what children are expected to know and be able to do, 2 have rigorous and coherent content, and 3 encourage teaching of advanced skills. Achievement standards must be aligned with state content standards and have three levels of achievement — basic, proficient, and advanced. The NCLB allows each state to develop its own standards and assessments and to set its own definitions for the three achievement levels.
It sets standards for tests but does not measure states against one another on either standards or student achievement. The Race to the Top grant, on the other hand, requires a state that receives a grant to promise to adopt and use common K standards for what students know and are able to do. These standards must be developed in a consortium with several other states and be internationally benchmarked. States must also commit to increasing the quality of their assessments and, with other states, implement common assessments.
States receive higher scores for being part of a consortium with a significant number of other states. The accountability system must 1 be based on the academic standards, state tests, and other academic indicators; 2 be the same for all public schools and school districts; and 3 include both sanctions and rewards for school districts and schools. States must test each student in grades three through eight and grade 10 in specified subjects.
Test scores must be reported by district, school, and by subgroups within a school. States must define AYP towards meeting the standard. The definition must:.
0コメント