- Premium Academic Help From Professionals
- +1 810 395 5448
- support@essayshredder.com
Standards and Accountability EPS 9610
Standards and Accountability EPS 9610
October 20, 2020
1
The Pieces
Content Standards ->Curriculum ->Instruction ->Learning ->Assessment ->Accountability
The question: How do these pieces fit together?
Era of Reform
A Nation at Risk (1983)
America 2000 (1991)
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)
Improving America’s Schools Act (ESEA, 1994)
No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
Race to the Top (2009)
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)
Nation at Risk
Urged adoption of tougher standards
Stronger graduation requirements
More rigorous curriculum
Higher salaries for teachers
Improved teacher training
America 2000
Children will start school “ready to learn”
National graduation rate of 90%
Master of five core subjects before leaving 4th, 8th, and 12th grade
Lead the world in math & science
All American adults to be literate and prepared for work and citizenship
Every school safe and drug free
Goals 2000/ESEA (1994)
Build upon goals set under America 2000
States were required to create standards-based education system that would apply to all students
Standards in each grade
Tests to be administered to all poor children at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.
NCLB (2001)
Increase accountability for student performance
Focus on what works
Reduce bureaucracy and increase flexibility
Empower parents
Theory of Action
What is the underlying “theory of action” for the following:
ESEA (1965)
NCLB (2001)
RTTT (2009)
ESSA (2016)
Theory of Action – NCLB
Holding schools and districts accountable for student performance
Concerned with the achievement gap – “the soft bigotry of low expectations”
Lack of funding and know-how in needy schools
Problems of poverty in society and larger culture
Dysfunctional school culture, lax system of governance, and no incentives for improving performance
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4536967/president-bush
In 2000, the average African American 12th grader was reading and performing math at approximately the same level as the average white 8th eighth grader
NCLB was primarily targeted towards addressing the third explanation for the achievement gap – need for external pressure focused on student achievement would motivate local education systems to reform
Critics argued that the accountability provisions were unlikely to channel political pressure in constructive ways; standardized tests are too crude for measuring student achievement; reliance on tests lead to “rigging” the system in the curriculum, test prep, and the tests themselves; the laws expectations of 100% proficient by 2014 are unrealistic which leads to inevitable failure; need for a coherent school system to be able to actually implement reform – i.e., low performing schools do not have the capacity to respond to external pressures.
Hold schools accountable for the performance of student subgroups
Challenging content standards
State assessments that mirror those standards
Annually test students to measure competency in the “core subjects” of math and reading
Key components for accountability (NCLB)
1) Academic standards (e.g., GLCEs)
– state developed -> transition to Common Core
2) Achievement standards (e.g., M-Step, Smarter Balance)
– proficiency levels
3) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
– disaggregated by race/ethnicity, low income, special ed, ELL
4) Sanctions
– assistance/plans, corrective action, restructuring
Race to the Top
1) College & career readiness
-> common core standards & assessments
2) Improving teacher effectiveness
-> reform teacher evaluation & compensation
3) Data systems to guide instruction
4) Turn around struggling schools
-> a) turnaround, b) restart, c) closure, or d) transformation
5) Promote innovation
-> support expansion of charter schools; STEM programs; etc
Michigan Response to RTT
1) Reform failing schools (RSC 380.1280(c))
-> identification of 5% lowest achieving schools
-> under supervision of state reform officer
-> choose one of 4 approved reform models
-> if plan does not work may be placed in EAA
2) Raised the dropout age to 18
3) Teacher/Administrator evaluation/compensation reform (RSC 380.1249 & 1250)
4) Change to Teacher Tenure Act
5) Expansion of charter/virtual schools
6) Change cut scores and move to Common Core
Common Core Standards
What are they?
Why do they exist?
What are the arguments for & against state adoption?
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/nemi1a/the-colbert-report-common-core-confusion
ESSA – Accountability
goodbye 100% proficient goal
identify 5% lowest performing schools for “comprehensive support”
identify high schools with grad rate <= 67% for “comprehensive support”
schools w/low-performing subgroup must implement “targeted intervention”
must assess 95% of all students
10
ESSA – Assessments
Annual assessment of students in grades 3-8, and one in high school, in math & English/language arts
May be delivered in part in form of projects, portfolios, and extended-performance tasks
At high school level, may implement nationally recognized tests
May set target limit for aggregate amount of time spent on assessment administration
11
ESSA – Teachers & Leaders
Eliminates HQT provision (no minimum bar for entry into the profession)
Districts required to describe how they will identify and address disparities in teacher quality (effectiveness, experience, qualifications) across student subgroups
States must collect and publicly report on these disparities
State must create plans to reduce these disparities
Districts must have mechanisms to inform parents regarding teacher professional qualifications
States must use fed PD funds to increase access to effective teachers for low-income students/students of color
12
Circling Back
Policy frameworks/models
How do we understand the process for passage of ESSA?
Policy Instruments
Accountability “mandates” remain, but why the softening?
Policy Implementation
More state and local discretion, more variation in implementation?
Policy Diffusion
Who will be the “thought” leaders?
13
Your district
Go to www.mischooldata.org
Click on “Parent Dashboard” and/or “Student Assessment”
Find your district
Explore…
Student proficiency on state assessments (district & individual schools – how much variation is there)
Graduation rates/Dropout rates
How do these vary by student subgroup?
How do these compare to other districts/schools in ISD and/or State?
FINALLY – what does this say about the “quality” of your school, administrators, teachers, etc?
14
