View in EDS

Standards, Assessments, and Accountability. Education Policy White Paper

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Standards, Assessments, and Accountability. Education Policy White Paper
Language: English
Authors: Shepard, Lorrie, Hannaway, Jane, Baker, Eva, National Academy of Education
Source: National Academy of Education (NJ1). 2009.
Availability: National Academy of Education. 500 Fifth Street NW Suite 339, Washington, DC 20001. Tel: 202-334-2341; Fax: 202-334-2350; e-mail: info@naeducation.org; Web site: http://www.naeducation.org
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Research and Development, Elementary Secondary Education, Federal Legislation, Educational Improvement, Academic Achievement, Educational Legislation, State Standards, Standards, State Government, Federal Government, Academic Standards, Government Role, Accountability, National Standards, Evaluation, Faculty Development
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act 2001
Abstract: Standards-based education reform has a more than 20-year history. A standards-based vision was enacted in federal law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. In a recent survey of policy makers, standards were acknowledged as the central framework guiding state education policy. Yet, despite this apparent unanimity about the intuitively appealing idea of standards, there is great confusion about its "operational" meaning: exactly what should the standards be, how should they be set and by whom, and how should they be applied to ensure rigorous and high-quality education for American students are the central questions that challenge policy makers and educators. For example, "content" standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do) are often confused with "performance" standards (which are more like passing scores on a test), and very different theories of action are used to explain how standards-based reforms are expected to work. Ambitious rhetoric has called for systemic reform and profound changes in curriculum and assessments to enable higher levels of learning. In reality, however, implementation of standards has frequently resulted in a much more familiar policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items often become crude proxies for the standards. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is one of the reasons for the failure of prior reforms. Standards-based education is still the core idea guiding education policy and education reform. But the foregoing issues need to be addressed if the promises of standards-based education are to be kept. As yet, neither state content standards nor state tests reflect the ambitions of standards-based reform rhetoric, and the link between high expectations for all students and capacity building has been almost forgotten. The intentions of standards-based education--to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement--are in the best interest of the country. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should encourage the redesign and clear connection of content and performance standards--and the curricula, teacher training, and high-quality assessments to go with them--with the goal of developing clearly articulated statements of the expected progression of learning. Efforts to develop these components may involve partnerships among states, universities, groups of teachers, scholars, and the private sector; (2) The federal government should support research on accountability system indicators to reflect both the status and growth of students. Performance standards should set ambitious but realistic targets for teaching and learning, and they should communicate to the public, parents, educators, and students themselves what is to be learned. Assessment results should be reported in ways that recognize progress all along the achievement continuum; (3) The federal government should support the redesign and ongoing evaluation of accountability systems to ensure that they contribute to school improvement. Less than satisfactory school performance should trigger closer investigation of school operations before remedies or sanctions are applied, and stellar performances should also be verified. Different investigative approaches, including audit assessments, data-driven analyses, or expert constituted inspectorates, should be considered; and (4) The federal government should support an intensive program of research and development to create the next generation of performance assessments explicitly linked to well-designed content standards and curricula. (Contains 77 notes.)
Abstractor: ERIC
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: ED531138
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED531138
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED531138
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Standards, Assessments, and Accountability. Education Policy White Paper
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shepard%2C+Lorrie%22">Shepard, Lorrie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hannaway%2C+Jane%22">Hannaway, Jane</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+Eva%22">Baker, Eva</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22National+Academy+of+Education%22">National Academy of Education</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22National+Academy+of+Education+%28NJ1%29%22"><i>National Academy of Education (NJ1)</i></searchLink>. 2009.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: National Academy of Education. 500 Fifth Street NW Suite 339, Washington, DC 20001. Tel: 202-334-2341; Fax: 202-334-2350; e-mail: info@naeducation.org; Web site: http://www.naeducation.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+and+Development%22">Research and Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Improvement%22">Educational Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Standards%22">State Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Government%22">State Government</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Government%22">Federal Government</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Standards%22">Academic Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Government+Role%22">Government Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Standards%22">National Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Elementary+and+Secondary+Education+Act%22">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22No+Child+Left+Behind+Act+2001%22">No Child Left Behind Act 2001</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Standards-based education reform has a more than 20-year history. A standards-based vision was enacted in federal law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. In a recent survey of policy makers, standards were acknowledged as the central framework guiding state education policy. Yet, despite this apparent unanimity about the intuitively appealing idea of standards, there is great confusion about its "operational" meaning: exactly what should the standards be, how should they be set and by whom, and how should they be applied to ensure rigorous and high-quality education for American students are the central questions that challenge policy makers and educators. For example, "content" standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do) are often confused with "performance" standards (which are more like passing scores on a test), and very different theories of action are used to explain how standards-based reforms are expected to work. Ambitious rhetoric has called for systemic reform and profound changes in curriculum and assessments to enable higher levels of learning. In reality, however, implementation of standards has frequently resulted in a much more familiar policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items often become crude proxies for the standards. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is one of the reasons for the failure of prior reforms. Standards-based education is still the core idea guiding education policy and education reform. But the foregoing issues need to be addressed if the promises of standards-based education are to be kept. As yet, neither state content standards nor state tests reflect the ambitions of standards-based reform rhetoric, and the link between high expectations for all students and capacity building has been almost forgotten. The intentions of standards-based education--to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement--are in the best interest of the country. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should encourage the redesign and clear connection of content and performance standards--and the curricula, teacher training, and high-quality assessments to go with them--with the goal of developing clearly articulated statements of the expected progression of learning. Efforts to develop these components may involve partnerships among states, universities, groups of teachers, scholars, and the private sector; (2) The federal government should support research on accountability system indicators to reflect both the status and growth of students. Performance standards should set ambitious but realistic targets for teaching and learning, and they should communicate to the public, parents, educators, and students themselves what is to be learned. Assessment results should be reported in ways that recognize progress all along the achievement continuum; (3) The federal government should support the redesign and ongoing evaluation of accountability systems to ensure that they contribute to school improvement. Less than satisfactory school performance should trigger closer investigation of school operations before remedies or sanctions are applied, and stellar performances should also be verified. Different investigative approaches, including audit assessments, data-driven analyses, or expert constituted inspectorates, should be considered; and (4) The federal government should support an intensive program of research and development to create the next generation of performance assessments explicitly linked to well-designed content standards and curricula. (Contains 77 notes.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED531138
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED531138
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Research and Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Government
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Government
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Government Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary and Secondary Education Act
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: No Child Left Behind Act 2001
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Standards, Assessments, and Accountability. Education Policy White Paper
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: National Academy of Education
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shepard, Lorrie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hannaway, Jane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, Eva
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2009
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: National Academy of Education (NJ1)
              Type: main
ResultId 1