“不让一个孩子掉队”时代的应试教育问责制。CSE报告651。

R. Linn
{"title":"“不让一个孩子掉队”时代的应试教育问责制。CSE报告651。","authors":"R. Linn","doi":"10.1037/e645322011-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ever-increasing reliance on student performance on tests as a way of holding schools and educators accountable is discussed. Comparisons are made between state accountability requirements and the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The resulting mixed messages being given by the two systems are discussed. Features of NCLB accountability and state accountability systems that contribute to the identification of a school as meeting goals according to NCLB but failing to do so according to the state accountability system, or vise versa, are discussed. These include the multiple hurdles of NCLB, the comparison of performance against a fixed target rather than changes in achievement, and the definition of performance goals. Some suggestions are provided for improving the NCLB accountability system. The assessment of student achievement has long been an integral part of education. Test results for individual students have been used for myriad purposes, such as monitoring progress, assigning grades, placement, college admissions, and in grade-to-grade promotion, and high school graduation decisions. The use of student test results to judge programs and schools, with a few exceptions (see, for example, Resnick, 1982), has a shorter, but still substantial, history. Both states and the federal government have moved away from resource and process measures as a means of judging the quality of schools to an ever-increasing reliance on student test results to hold schools accountable. The characteristics of the school accountability systems evolved over the last 40 years and the systems vary a good deal from one state to another, as do the state and federal accountability systems.","PeriodicalId":19116,"journal":{"name":"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test-Based Educational Accountability in the Era of No Child Left Behind. CSE Report 651.\",\"authors\":\"R. Linn\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/e645322011-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ever-increasing reliance on student performance on tests as a way of holding schools and educators accountable is discussed. Comparisons are made between state accountability requirements and the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The resulting mixed messages being given by the two systems are discussed. Features of NCLB accountability and state accountability systems that contribute to the identification of a school as meeting goals according to NCLB but failing to do so according to the state accountability system, or vise versa, are discussed. These include the multiple hurdles of NCLB, the comparison of performance against a fixed target rather than changes in achievement, and the definition of performance goals. Some suggestions are provided for improving the NCLB accountability system. The assessment of student achievement has long been an integral part of education. Test results for individual students have been used for myriad purposes, such as monitoring progress, assigning grades, placement, college admissions, and in grade-to-grade promotion, and high school graduation decisions. The use of student test results to judge programs and schools, with a few exceptions (see, for example, Resnick, 1982), has a shorter, but still substantial, history. Both states and the federal government have moved away from resource and process measures as a means of judging the quality of schools to an ever-increasing reliance on student test results to hold schools accountable. The characteristics of the school accountability systems evolved over the last 40 years and the systems vary a good deal from one state to another, as do the state and federal accountability systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/e645322011-001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e645322011-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

讨论了日益依赖学生在考试中的表现作为一种对学校和教育工作者负责的方式。比较了州问责要求和2001年《不让一个孩子掉队法》(NCLB)的问责要求。讨论了两个系统给出的混合信息。讨论了NCLB问责制和州问责制的特点,这些特点有助于确定一所学校符合NCLB的目标,但未能按照州问责制做到这一点,反之亦然。其中包括NCLB的多重障碍,将绩效与固定目标而不是成就变化进行比较,以及绩效目标的定义。最后,提出了完善《不平等法律》问责制的建议。长期以来,学生成绩评估一直是教育的一个组成部分。个别学生的测试结果被用于无数目的,例如监控进度,分配分数,安置,大学入学,年级到年级的晋升和高中毕业决定。使用学生测试结果来评判课程和学校,除了少数例外(例如,见Resnick, 1982),历史较短,但仍然很重要。州政府和联邦政府已经不再把资源和过程作为评判学校质量的手段,而是越来越依赖学生的测试结果来让学校承担责任。在过去的40年里,学校问责制的特点不断演变,各州之间的问责制差异很大,州和联邦的问责制也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Test-Based Educational Accountability in the Era of No Child Left Behind. CSE Report 651.
The ever-increasing reliance on student performance on tests as a way of holding schools and educators accountable is discussed. Comparisons are made between state accountability requirements and the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The resulting mixed messages being given by the two systems are discussed. Features of NCLB accountability and state accountability systems that contribute to the identification of a school as meeting goals according to NCLB but failing to do so according to the state accountability system, or vise versa, are discussed. These include the multiple hurdles of NCLB, the comparison of performance against a fixed target rather than changes in achievement, and the definition of performance goals. Some suggestions are provided for improving the NCLB accountability system. The assessment of student achievement has long been an integral part of education. Test results for individual students have been used for myriad purposes, such as monitoring progress, assigning grades, placement, college admissions, and in grade-to-grade promotion, and high school graduation decisions. The use of student test results to judge programs and schools, with a few exceptions (see, for example, Resnick, 1982), has a shorter, but still substantial, history. Both states and the federal government have moved away from resource and process measures as a means of judging the quality of schools to an ever-increasing reliance on student test results to hold schools accountable. The characteristics of the school accountability systems evolved over the last 40 years and the systems vary a good deal from one state to another, as do the state and federal accountability systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Aligning Instruction and Assessment with Game and Simulation Design. CRESST Report 780. Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading: Effective Tools for Developing Literacy through Science in the Early Grades-Light Energy Unit. CRESST Report 781. Accessible Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities: The Role of Cognitive, Grammatical, Lexical, and Textual/Visual Features. CRESST Report 785. Preparing Students for the 21st Century: Exploring the Effect of Afterschool Participation on Students' Collaboration Skills, Oral Communication Skills, and Self-Efficacy. CRESST Report 777. What Works? Common Practices in High Functioning Afterschool Programs across the Nation in Math, Reading, Science, Arts, Technology, and Homework--A Study by the National Partnership. The Afterschool Program Assessment Guide. CRESST Report 768.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1