Project STAR was a large-scale randomized trial of reduced class sizes in grades K-3. Because of the scope of the experiment, it has been used in many policy discussions. For example, the California state-wide Class Size Reduction was justified in part on the successes of Project STAR. Recent (failed) proposals for Federal assistance for class size reductions in the Senate were motivated by Project STAR research. Even the recent discussion of small schools often conflates the notion of small schools and smaller classrooms. Because of the importance of Project STAR, it has been studied by many scholars looking at a wide variety of outcomes and even exploiting the randomization using its variation to understand variations in inputsother aspects of the education production function that do not directly relate to class size. This paper provides an overview of the academic literature using the Project STAR experiment.
{"title":"What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?","authors":"D. Schanzenbach","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2007.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2007.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Project STAR was a large-scale randomized trial of reduced class sizes in grades K-3. Because of the scope of the experiment, it has been used in many policy discussions. For example, the California state-wide Class Size Reduction was justified in part on the successes of Project STAR. Recent (failed) proposals for Federal assistance for class size reductions in the Senate were motivated by Project STAR research. Even the recent discussion of small schools often conflates the notion of small schools and smaller classrooms. Because of the importance of Project STAR, it has been studied by many scholars looking at a wide variety of outcomes and even exploiting the randomization using its variation to understand variations in inputsother aspects of the education production function that do not directly relate to class size. This paper provides an overview of the academic literature using the Project STAR experiment.","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86816856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reid Lyon, S. Shaywitz, B. Shaywitz, Vinita Chhabra
Over the past decade the root of certain education policies in the United States has shifted from philosophical and ideological foundations to the application of converging scientific evidence to forge policy directions and initiatives. This has been particularly the case for early (kindergarten through third grade) reading instructional policies and practices. The use of scientific evidence rather than subjective impressions to guide education policy represents a dramatic shift in thinking about education. Some education policy initiatives in the United States now reflect a reliance on findings from rigorous scientific research rather than opinion, ideology, fads, and political interests.1 Advances in brain imaging technology now make it possible to provide evidence of the impact of scientifically informed reading instruction on brain organization for reading.
{"title":"Evidence-Based Reading Policy in the United States: How Scientific Research Informs Instructional Practices","authors":"Reid Lyon, S. Shaywitz, B. Shaywitz, Vinita Chhabra","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0009","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade the root of certain education policies in the United States has shifted from philosophical and ideological foundations to the application of converging scientific evidence to forge policy directions and initiatives. This has been particularly the case for early (kindergarten through third grade) reading instructional policies and practices. The use of scientific evidence rather than subjective impressions to guide education policy represents a dramatic shift in thinking about education. Some education policy initiatives in the United States now reflect a reliance on findings from rigorous scientific research rather than opinion, ideology, fads, and political interests.1 Advances in brain imaging technology now make it possible to provide evidence of the impact of scientifically informed reading instruction on brain organization for reading.","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79432421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Education Reform and Content: The Long View","authors":"E. Hirsch","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81696762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"School Choice: How an Abstract Idea Became a Political Reality","authors":"J. Viteritti","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83233840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent dissatisfaction with public education in the United States has been matched by dismay with the current state of education research. A common complaint is that education research is good at description and hypothesis generation but not at answering causal questions about the effects of education policies on student outcomes.1 In this vein, many policymakers have expressed frustration that, as Ellen Condliffe Lagemann has noted, “education research has not yielded dramatic improvements in practice of the kind one can point to in medicine.”2 Such dissatisfaction has contributed to a number of recent federal policy changes intended to improve the quality of research in education, including the creation of a new Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to support increased experimentation within education and an emphasis on the use of teaching methods supported by “scientifically-based research” in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this paper we consider the possible effects of these recent changes on the state of education research. We focus on what might be termed program or policy evaluation—research that aims to support causal inferences about the efficacy of specific educational programs or policies. Examples include studies that examine whether smaller class size improves student achievement, whether a particular reading curriculum leads to increased reading comprehension, and whether “pull-out” programs are more effective than “push-in” programs for students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that a great deal of research in education does not aim to answer these types of questions but rather
{"title":"Comments","authors":"R. Boruch, M. Vinovskis","doi":"10.1353/pep.2005.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2005.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Recent dissatisfaction with public education in the United States has been matched by dismay with the current state of education research. A common complaint is that education research is good at description and hypothesis generation but not at answering causal questions about the effects of education policies on student outcomes.1 In this vein, many policymakers have expressed frustration that, as Ellen Condliffe Lagemann has noted, “education research has not yielded dramatic improvements in practice of the kind one can point to in medicine.”2 Such dissatisfaction has contributed to a number of recent federal policy changes intended to improve the quality of research in education, including the creation of a new Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to support increased experimentation within education and an emphasis on the use of teaching methods supported by “scientifically-based research” in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this paper we consider the possible effects of these recent changes on the state of education research. We focus on what might be termed program or policy evaluation—research that aims to support causal inferences about the efficacy of specific educational programs or policies. Examples include studies that examine whether smaller class size improves student achievement, whether a particular reading curriculum leads to increased reading comprehension, and whether “pull-out” programs are more effective than “push-in” programs for students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that a great deal of research in education does not aim to answer these types of questions but rather","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81244175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent dissatisfaction with public education in the United States has been matched by dismay with the current state of education research. A common complaint is that education research is good at description and hypothesis generation but not at answering causal questions about the effects of education policies on student outcomes.1 In this vein, many policymakers have expressed frustration that, as Ellen Condliffe Lagemann has noted, “education research has not yielded dramatic improvements in practice of the kind one can point to in medicine.”2 Such dissatisfaction has contributed to a number of recent federal policy changes intended to improve the quality of research in education, including the creation of a new Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to support increased experimentation within education and an emphasis on the use of teaching methods supported by “scientifically-based research” in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this paper we consider the possible effects of these recent changes on the state of education research. We focus on what might be termed program or policy evaluation—research that aims to support causal inferences about the efficacy of specific educational programs or policies. Examples include studies that examine whether smaller class size improves student achievement, whether a particular reading curriculum leads to increased reading comprehension, and whether “pull-out” programs are more effective than “push-in” programs for students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that a great deal of research in education does not aim to answer these types of questions but rather
{"title":"Can the Federal Government Improve Education Research?","authors":"B. Jacob, J. Ludwig","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Recent dissatisfaction with public education in the United States has been matched by dismay with the current state of education research. A common complaint is that education research is good at description and hypothesis generation but not at answering causal questions about the effects of education policies on student outcomes.1 In this vein, many policymakers have expressed frustration that, as Ellen Condliffe Lagemann has noted, “education research has not yielded dramatic improvements in practice of the kind one can point to in medicine.”2 Such dissatisfaction has contributed to a number of recent federal policy changes intended to improve the quality of research in education, including the creation of a new Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to support increased experimentation within education and an emphasis on the use of teaching methods supported by “scientifically-based research” in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this paper we consider the possible effects of these recent changes on the state of education research. We focus on what might be termed program or policy evaluation—research that aims to support causal inferences about the efficacy of specific educational programs or policies. Examples include studies that examine whether smaller class size improves student achievement, whether a particular reading curriculum leads to increased reading comprehension, and whether “pull-out” programs are more effective than “push-in” programs for students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that a great deal of research in education does not aim to answer these types of questions but rather","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86329770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Realizing the Promise of Brand-Name Schools","authors":"S. F. Wilson","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90491239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reform movements in American education are based on theories of social change. The standards and accountability movement is based on the theory that a sequence of three activities will improve education: first, defining what students should learn (setting standards); second, testing to see what students have learned (measuring achievement); third, making the results count (holding educators and students accountable). Most analysts date the standards and accountability movement to the early 1990s, when states began establishing standards in academic subjects. States then instituted testing programs and implemented incentives for schools and students based on pupil test scores. The systems are mature enough to have produced some preliminary results. What is known so far about the effects of accountability systems on student achievement? Do they work? Are there any unintended consequences? In general, evaluations of accountability systems have been quite positive. In raising student achievement, states that have implemented such systems are outperforming states that have not done so. Although the potential for serious unintended consequences cannot be ruled out, the harms documented to date appear temporary and malleable. Promising results, however, do not guarantee the longevity of an education reform.1 Various threats to accountability exist, in particular, the political perils that state systems face when policies are implemented. What do these threats portend for the future of test-based accountability in the United States? That question is especially relevant today as the No Child Left Behind Act, the landmark legislation that federalized what had been primarily a state and local
美国教育改革运动是以社会变革理论为基础的。标准和问责运动的理论基础是，一系列的三个活动将改善教育:首先，确定学生应该学什么(制定标准);第二，通过测试来了解学生学到了什么(衡量成绩);第三，让结果有价值(让教育者和学生负起责任)。大多数分析人士将标准和问责制运动追溯到20世纪90年代初，当时各州开始制定学术科目标准。各州随后制定了测试计划，并根据学生的测试成绩对学校和学生实施激励措施。这些系统已经足够成熟，可以产生一些初步结果。关于问责制对学生成绩的影响，到目前为止我们知道什么?它们有用吗?是否有任何意想不到的后果?总的来说，对责任制的评价是相当积极的。在提高学生成绩方面，实施了这种制度的州比没有这样做的州表现得更好。虽然不能排除造成严重意外后果的可能性，但迄今为止记录的危害似乎是暂时的和可延展性的。然而，有希望的结果并不能保证教育改革的长久之计对问责制的各种威胁存在，特别是国家制度在实施政策时面临的政治风险。这些威胁预示着美国基于考试的问责制的未来?随着《不让一个孩子掉队法》(No Child Left Behind Act)的出台，这个问题在今天显得尤为重要。这部具有里程碑意义的立法将原本主要由州和地方组成的法案联邦化
{"title":"Test-Based Accountability: The Promise and the Perils","authors":"Tom Loveless","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2005.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2005.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Reform movements in American education are based on theories of social change. The standards and accountability movement is based on the theory that a sequence of three activities will improve education: first, defining what students should learn (setting standards); second, testing to see what students have learned (measuring achievement); third, making the results count (holding educators and students accountable). Most analysts date the standards and accountability movement to the early 1990s, when states began establishing standards in academic subjects. States then instituted testing programs and implemented incentives for schools and students based on pupil test scores. The systems are mature enough to have produced some preliminary results. What is known so far about the effects of accountability systems on student achievement? Do they work? Are there any unintended consequences? In general, evaluations of accountability systems have been quite positive. In raising student achievement, states that have implemented such systems are outperforming states that have not done so. Although the potential for serious unintended consequences cannot be ruled out, the harms documented to date appear temporary and malleable. Promising results, however, do not guarantee the longevity of an education reform.1 Various threats to accountability exist, in particular, the political perils that state systems face when policies are implemented. What do these threats portend for the future of test-based accountability in the United States? That question is especially relevant today as the No Child Left Behind Act, the landmark legislation that federalized what had been primarily a state and local","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81384788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comments","authors":"Henry M. Levin, J. Mathews","doi":"10.1353/pep.2005.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2005.0007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76427387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comments","authors":"Robert M. Costrell, Larry Cuban","doi":"10.1353/pep.2005.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2005.0004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90315727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：