No Child Left Behind and High School Reform
Tóm tắt
Although No Child Left Behind (NCLB) aims to close the achievement gap that parallels race and class, some of its key provisions are at odds with reforms that are successfully overhauling the large, comprehensive high schools that traditionally have failed students of color and low-income students in urban areas. While small, restructured schools are improving graduation and college attendance rates, NCLB accountability provisions create counterincentives that encourage higher dropout and push-out rates for low-achieving students (especially English language learners), create obstacles to staffing that allow for greater personalization, and discourage performance assessments that cultivate higher-order thinking and performance abilities. In this article, Linda Darling-Hammond proposes specific amendments to NCLB that could help achieve the goal of providing high-quality, equitable education for all students by recruiting highly qualified teachers and defining such teachers in appropriate ways; by rethinking the accountability metrics for calculating adequate yearly progress so that schools have incentives to keep students in school rather than pushing them out; and by encouraging the use of performance assessments that can motivate ambitious intellectual work.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Advocates for Children. (2002, November 21). Pushing out at-risk students: An analysis of high school discharge figures; joint report by AFC and the Public Advocate. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/pushout-11-20-02.html http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/pushout-11-20-02.html
American Association for Employment in Education. (2000). Teacher supply and demand in the United States: 2000 report. Evanston, IL: Author.
Braddock, J. H., & McPartland, J. M. (1993). The education of early adolescents. Review of Research in Education, 19, 135–170.
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Diaz, R. (2003, February). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington, DC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v8n1 http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v8n1
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the coalition campus school project. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 639–673.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (Report of the National Academy of Education's Committee on Teacher Education). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach For America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education; The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/ http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/
Ferris, J. S., & West, E. G. (2002). Economies of scale, school violence, and the optimal size of schools. Carleton Economic Paper 02-01. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http:// www.carleton.ca/economics/cep/cep02-01.pdf http:// www.carleton.ca/economics/cep/cep02-01.pdf
Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2002, April). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system? (Working Paper No. 9307). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://www.nber.org/papers/ w9307 http://www.nber.org/papers/ w9307
Gottfredson, D. (1985). School size and school disorder (Report No. 360). Baltimore: Center for the Social Organization of Schools.
Green, G., & Stevens, W. (1988). What research says about small schools, Rural Educators 10(1), 9–14.
Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/ http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
Haney, W. (2002). Lake Woebeguaranteed: Misuse of test scores in Massachusetts, Part I. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(24). Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n24/ http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n24/
Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation (A report of the National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Howley, C. B., & Howley, A. A. (2004). School size and the influence of socioeconomic status on achievement: Confronting the threat of size bias in national data sets. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(52). Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v12n52/ http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v12n52/
Jacob, B. A. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing on student achievement: Evidence from Chicago. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 171–268). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Leung, A. & Ferris, J. S. (2002). School size and youth violence. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University (Carleton Economic Paper, 02–10).
National Academy of Education. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 1998–1999 (NCES 2000-345). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America's children. Washington, DC: Author.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Packer, J. (2004, July 28). No Child Left Behind and adequate yearly progress fundamental flaws: A forecast for failure. Paper presented at the Center for Education Policy Forum on Ideas to Improve the Accountability Provisions, Washington, DC.
Spellings, M. (2005, October 21). Letter to chief state school officers regarding the "highly qualified teacher" provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and elements the department will use in determining if states are in compliance. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/051021.html http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/051021.html
Tracey, C. (2005). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and NCLB. In G. L. Sunderman, J. S. Kim & G. Orfield, NCLB meets school realities (pp. 81–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wehlage, G. G., Smith, G. & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The new futures experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51–93.
Wheelock, A. (2003). School awards programs and accountability in Massachusetts: Misusing MCAS scores to assess school quality. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www. fairtest.org/arn/Alert%20June02/Alert%20Full%20Report.html http://www. fairtest.org/arn/Alert%20June02/Alert%20Full%20Report.html