考试驱动问责制下的学校改进:加州高中和低绩效中学的比较。CSE报告717。

H. Mintrop, Tina Trujillo
{"title":"考试驱动问责制下的学校改进:加州高中和低绩效中学的比较。CSE报告717。","authors":"H. Mintrop, Tina Trujillo","doi":"10.1037/e643832011-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on in-depth data from nine demographically similar schools, the study asks five questions in regard to key aspects of the improvement process and that speak to the consequential validity of accountability indicators: Do schools that differ widely according to system performance criteria also differ on the quality of the educational experience they provide to students? Are schools that have posted high growth on the state’s performance index more effective organizationally? Do high-performing schools respond more productively to the messages of their state accountability system? Do highand low-performing schools exhibit different approaches to organizational learning and teacher professionalism? Is district instructional management in an aligned state accountability system related to performance? We report our findings in three results papers1 (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007a, 2007b; Trujillo & Mintrop, 2007) and this technical report. The results papers, in a nutshell, show that, across the nine case study schools, one positive performance outlier differed indeed in the quality of teaching, organizational effectiveness, response to accountability, and patterns of organizational learning. Across the other eight schools, however, the patterns blurred. We conclude that, save for performance differences on the extreme positive and negative margins, relationships between system-designated performance levels and improvement processes on the ground are uncertain and far from solid. The papers try to elucidate why this may be so. This final technical report summarizes the major components of the study design and methodology, including case selection, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis techniques. We describe the context of the study as well as descriptive data on our cases and procedures. School improvement is an intricate business. Whether a school succeeds in improving is dependent on a host of factors. Factors come into play that are internal and external to the organization. The motivation and capacity of the workforce, the 1 The three reports are entitled Accountability Urgency, Organizational Learning, and Educational Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of California Middle Schools; The Practical Relevance of Accountability Systems for School Improvement: A Descriptive Analysis of California Schools; and Centralized Instructional Management: District Control, Organizational Culture, and School Performance.","PeriodicalId":19116,"journal":{"name":"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing","volume":"112 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"School Improvement under Test-Driven Accountability: A Comparison of High- and Low-Performing Middle Schools in California. CSE Report 717.\",\"authors\":\"H. Mintrop, Tina Trujillo\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/e643832011-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on in-depth data from nine demographically similar schools, the study asks five questions in regard to key aspects of the improvement process and that speak to the consequential validity of accountability indicators: Do schools that differ widely according to system performance criteria also differ on the quality of the educational experience they provide to students? Are schools that have posted high growth on the state’s performance index more effective organizationally? Do high-performing schools respond more productively to the messages of their state accountability system? Do highand low-performing schools exhibit different approaches to organizational learning and teacher professionalism? Is district instructional management in an aligned state accountability system related to performance? We report our findings in three results papers1 (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007a, 2007b; Trujillo & Mintrop, 2007) and this technical report. The results papers, in a nutshell, show that, across the nine case study schools, one positive performance outlier differed indeed in the quality of teaching, organizational effectiveness, response to accountability, and patterns of organizational learning. Across the other eight schools, however, the patterns blurred. We conclude that, save for performance differences on the extreme positive and negative margins, relationships between system-designated performance levels and improvement processes on the ground are uncertain and far from solid. The papers try to elucidate why this may be so. This final technical report summarizes the major components of the study design and methodology, including case selection, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis techniques. We describe the context of the study as well as descriptive data on our cases and procedures. School improvement is an intricate business. Whether a school succeeds in improving is dependent on a host of factors. Factors come into play that are internal and external to the organization. The motivation and capacity of the workforce, the 1 The three reports are entitled Accountability Urgency, Organizational Learning, and Educational Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of California Middle Schools; The Practical Relevance of Accountability Systems for School Improvement: A Descriptive Analysis of California Schools; and Centralized Instructional Management: District Control, Organizational Culture, and School Performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing\",\"volume\":\"112 2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"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/e643832011-001\",\"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/e643832011-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

基于9所人口统计学上相似的学校的深入数据,该研究就改进过程的关键方面提出了5个问题,这些问题与问责制指标的相应有效性有关:根据系统绩效标准差异很大的学校是否也在为学生提供的教育体验质量上存在差异?在国家绩效指数上高增长的学校在组织上是否更有效?表现优异的学校是否更有效地回应了州问责制的信息?高绩效学校和低绩效学校表现出不同的组织学习方法和教师专业精神吗?在统一的州问责制下的地区教学管理是否与绩效相关?我们在三篇结果论文中报告了我们的发现1 (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007a, 2007b;Trujillo & Mintrop, 2007)和这份技术报告。简而言之,结果论文表明,在九个案例研究学校中,有一个积极的异常值在教学质量、组织有效性、对责任的反应和组织学习模式方面确实存在差异。然而,在其他八所学校中,这种模式变得模糊了。我们得出的结论是,除了在极端的正边际和负边际上的性能差异外,系统指定的性能水平与实地改进过程之间的关系是不确定的,远非可靠的。论文试图解释为什么会这样。这份最终的技术报告总结了研究设计和方法的主要组成部分,包括病例选择、仪器、数据收集和数据分析技术。我们描述了研究的背景以及我们的病例和程序的描述性数据。学校的改进是一件复杂的事情。一所学校能否成功地改进取决于许多因素。组织内部和外部的因素都在起作用。这三份报告的题目是:问责紧迫性、组织学习和教育成果:加州中学的比较分析;问责制对学校改进的实际意义:对加州学校的描述性分析集中教学管理:区域控制、组织文化和学校绩效。
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
School Improvement under Test-Driven Accountability: A Comparison of High- and Low-Performing Middle Schools in California. CSE Report 717.
Based on in-depth data from nine demographically similar schools, the study asks five questions in regard to key aspects of the improvement process and that speak to the consequential validity of accountability indicators: Do schools that differ widely according to system performance criteria also differ on the quality of the educational experience they provide to students? Are schools that have posted high growth on the state’s performance index more effective organizationally? Do high-performing schools respond more productively to the messages of their state accountability system? Do highand low-performing schools exhibit different approaches to organizational learning and teacher professionalism? Is district instructional management in an aligned state accountability system related to performance? We report our findings in three results papers1 (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007a, 2007b; Trujillo & Mintrop, 2007) and this technical report. The results papers, in a nutshell, show that, across the nine case study schools, one positive performance outlier differed indeed in the quality of teaching, organizational effectiveness, response to accountability, and patterns of organizational learning. Across the other eight schools, however, the patterns blurred. We conclude that, save for performance differences on the extreme positive and negative margins, relationships between system-designated performance levels and improvement processes on the ground are uncertain and far from solid. The papers try to elucidate why this may be so. This final technical report summarizes the major components of the study design and methodology, including case selection, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis techniques. We describe the context of the study as well as descriptive data on our cases and procedures. School improvement is an intricate business. Whether a school succeeds in improving is dependent on a host of factors. Factors come into play that are internal and external to the organization. The motivation and capacity of the workforce, the 1 The three reports are entitled Accountability Urgency, Organizational Learning, and Educational Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of California Middle Schools; The Practical Relevance of Accountability Systems for School Improvement: A Descriptive Analysis of California Schools; and Centralized Instructional Management: District Control, Organizational Culture, and School Performance.
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