SYLLABUS GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM EDEP 650 High Stakes Assessment and Accountability Systems Fall 2010 Thursdays, 7:20-10:00 PM PROFESSOR & CONTACT INFORMATION: Name: Charles L. Thomas, Ph.D. Office phone 703-993-3137 Office location 2006 West Bldg. Office hours Mon. (2:30 PM- 3:30 PM) & Wed. (4:30 PM- 6:00 PM), and by Appointment Email address [email protected] COURSE DESCRIPTION: A. Prerequisites: None B. Catalog Description: EDRS 650, High-Stakes Assessment and Accountability Systems (3:3:0). Focus on school effectiveness tools and accountability models being implemented on state and national levels. Explores issues and methods relevant to educational policy, standardized testing, and classroom assessment. C. Course Description: This course focuses on two critical areas of modern public school reform in the United States: Accountability and the use of high stakes assessment systems. In terms of accountability, students will examine the context, issues, policies, and implementation strategies associated with the modern public school reform movement embodied in the reauthorization legislation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). This reauthorization, known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has redirected past efforts in public school reform in a number of significant ways, particularly in connecting assessment results to consequences related to school policy and action. This federal law is currently under review with revisions already established under the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative undertaken by the Obama Administration and funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The course also will address the policies, issues, methods, and effects of using high stakes assessment systems to implement public school accountability. NATURE OF COURSE DELIVERY: Lectures, small group and whole class discussions will provide the primary basis for inclass learning. Students will engage in independent research and field studies as a means of acquiring greater personal level of understanding of this area as it pertains to their own professional areas of interest. 1 Because the issues surrounding public school accountability is very fluid and dynamic, the course will rely on current selected readings and resources taken from education journals and online sources, including video clips. I have organized the readings into learning modules that are accessible on Blackboard (see Blackboard Course Content folder). A monograph detailing the evaluation of the Chicago Public School Reform Initiative also is required reading. [return] The schedule of class activities associated with the readings is found in Appendix B. [return] STUDENT OUTCOMES: At the end of the course, students will be able to demonstrate: 1. Comprehension of the basic principles of the Theory of Change as a conceptual framework for the critical analysis of public school reform 2. Understanding of the historic and political contexts of the current public school reform movement; 3. Understanding of the provisions of NCLB pertaining to accountability requirements; 4. Knowledge of some of the scholarly criticisms of NCLB and the new RTTT imitative from the point of view of schools as complex organizations; 5. Overall general knowledge of the accountability methods adopted by the states to meet the provisions of NCLB; 6. Specific and in-depth knowledge of a single state’s accountability and high-stakes testing systems devised in response to NCLB; 7. Comprehension of the differences between external and internal accountability processes; and 8. Understanding of the uses, advantages and limitations of high stakes testing as tools for public school accountability COURSE REQUIREMENTS, PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA: A. Requirements 1) Learning Module Assignments. Each module has a specific independent assignment that should be completed and submitted on the last scheduled date for the learning module. A separate handout, also found on Blackboard (Course Content Folder) details the specific assignments associated with each learning module. Each assignment is worth 10% of the final grade. Unless there has been prior approval, a reduction of 5% of the earned grade will be attached to any assignment that is seven (7) days past the scheduled due date. No assignment will be accepted thereafter. 2) Case Study and e-Portfolio (50%): The major student project is a case study of a specific school district’s accountability system as it is currently operating. Data collection will come primarily from the internet, although contact with district personnel responsible for accountability also may be required. The project will culminate with a written report to be submitted to the Instructor (see course calendar) and an e-portfolio that will serve as the basis for a student presentation on the last night of class. Guidelines for the case study will be distributed under separate cover. 2 3) Active Participation in Classroom Learning (10%): Students are expected to be active participants in class discussions, particularly involving the core readings. Part of the class time will involve small group discussions responsive to the learning module assignments. Students should be prepared for the discussions, and encouraged to draw on the resources found in Blackboard to augment the core readings. Besides the specific requirements, all written work will be evaluated for compliance with the required style and quality specified in Appendix C. [return] B. Grading Scale. Evaluation of products and performance assessments will be translated into the following grade equivalents: A = 95-100%; A - = 92-94%; B+ = 88 -91%; B = 84 – 87%; B- = 81-85%; C = 75-80%; D = 70-74%; F = < 70% C. Compliance with GMU and GSE Standards and Expectations. Students are to abide by the standards and expectations expressed in the GMU and GSE statements found in Appendix A. [return] REQUIRED BOOKS AND READINGS: Case Study: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu, and John Q. Easton (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226078014 Description: 328 pages, 72 line drawings, 11 tables 6 x 9 © 2009 Cloth $70.00 ISBN: 9780226077994 Published February 2010 Paper $28.00 ISBN: 9780226078007 Published February 2010 E-book from $5.00 to $28.00 (about e-books) Required Learning Module Readings: Your reading materials are located in Blackboard, logically sequenced in five learning modules that will guide your study of the many facets of current high-stakes accountability and assessment systems in our public schools. You may also peruse the reading titles in Appendix D. [return] Videos Obama (2009). Remarks by the President on Strengthening America's Education System James C. Wright Middle School, Madison, Wisconsin. November 4 2009 http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obamaannounces-4-billion-investment-education Obama (2010). The President and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pays a visit to Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Virginia January 19, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/19/speeding-race-top Whitehouse (2010).Nine States and The District of Columbia Win Second Round Race to the Top Grants. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/Education 3 APPENDIX A COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS The Graduate School of Education (GSE) expects that all students abide by the following: Students are expected to exhibit professional behavior and dispositions. See gse.gmu.edu for a listing of these dispositions. Students must follow the guidelines of the University Honor Code. See http://www.gmu.edu/catalog/apolicies/#TOC_H12 for the full honor code. Students must agree to abide by the university policy for Responsible Use of Computing. See http://mail.gmu.edu and click on Responsible Use of Computing at the bottom of the screen. Students with disabilities who seek accommodations in a course must be registered with the GMU Disability Resource Center (DRC) and inform the instructor, in writing, at the beginning of the semester. See www.gmu.edu/student/drc or call 703-993-2474 to access the DRC. 4 APPENDIX B CLASS SCHEDULE: FALL 2010 DATES SEPT 1-8 SEPT 15-22 SEPT 29 - OCT 27 LECTURE & READING TOPICS LEARNING MODULE 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A. Orientation to the Course B. Introduction & Statement of the problem Brief History of Public School Reform in the United States The General Problem: The Achievement Gap Sources of Empirical Evidence of the Problem o NAEP o TIMSS o NCES C. Theory of Change: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Problem Brief Description and Process Stages in Explicating A Theory of Change D. Module 1 Assignment due September 15 Study Resources: Blackboard Module 1 Readings LEARNING MODULE 2: THE CONTEXT A. Nonmarket Outcomes of Education B. Schools as Complex Organizations C. Module 2 Assignment due September 29 Study Resources: Blackboard Module 2 Readings LEARNING MODULE 2A: THE CASE A. Charting Reform B. Essential Supports and Importance of School Leadership C. The Case: Chicago Public School Reform D. Module 2A Assignment due November 3 Study Resources: Blackboard Module 2A Readings Including: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu, and John Q. Easton (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. NOV 3-10 LEARNING MODULE 3: THE RESPONSE A. At the Federal Level B. At the State Level C. At the District Level D. Module 3 Assignment Due November 17 Study Resources: Blackboard Module 3 Readings NOV 17-DEC 8 LEARNING MODULE 4: THE ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLE APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM A. Alignment of Standards and Assessments as an Accountability Criterion La Marca (2001) 5 Standards for Accountability Systems (Baker et al, http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy5.pdf Growth Standards and Accountability (Bettebender, http://www.nciea.org/publications/growthandStandard_DB09.pdf ) Moving Beyond NCLB B. Criticisms and Concerns Nichols and Berliner (2007) Rebel and Wolf (2009) Ravitch (2010) Darling-Hammond and Adamsom (2010) C. High Stakes Testing (HST) Mapping HST to NAEP for Generalizing HST Performance Technical Methods for HST Alignment HST Articulation Linking Teacher Assessment Data to Student Achievement Outcomes D. Module 4 Assignment December 8 Study Resources: Blackboard Module 4 Readings DEC 15 STUDENT PRESENTATIONS & FINAL PROJECTS 6 APPENDIX C GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS All written assignments should be typed, double-spaced, and include a cover page. In addition, for papers 10 pages or longer, the text of the papers should be preceded by an abstract of no more than 250 words that provides a synopsis of the content, such as purpose, procedures, findings and conclusions. In terms of general style, the format provided in the fourth edition of Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2002) should be followed.. The features that should be given close attention are: Margins Headings Citations in the Text Reference Page The cover page should include the title of the assignment, the standard course requirement statement, your name, date, and institutional affiliation information. You should make a copy of your projects before submitting it to the instructor 7 APPENDIX D Required Learning Module Reading List Module 1: Bowling, T. A. and Cummings, F. D. (2009). Closing the achievement gap. A tiered approach for supporting students with learning disabilities. Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center at Edvantia. Charlestown, W. VA. Dillon, S. (April 28, 2009). No Child us not closing a racial gap. Page A1 of the New York edition. The New York Times. Institute for Education Sciences. (2008). The condition of education 2008. Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC. Institute for Education Sciences. (2000). Understanding achievement gaps. Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/understand_gaps.asp Institute for Education Sciences. (2009). Achievement gap. How Black and White students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC. Kerachsky, S. (2009). National Assessment of Education Progress Achievement Gaps. National Center of Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education. Commissioner’s Remarks. http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2009/7_14_2009.asp The Center for Public Education. (2007). A guide to international assessments: At a glance. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057301/k.1900/D escription_of_TIMSS_Achievement_Levels.htm Wikipedia (2008). Achievement gap in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States Module 2: New Foundations (2010). The school as an organization. http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/SchoolasOrg.html Wolfe, B. (1995). Nonmarket outcomes of schooling. Institute for Research on Poverty. Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Module 2a: Anthony S. Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. and Easton, J. Q.. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226078014 Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Creating Caring Schools. S60, 40-45. http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/creating_sustaining/el200303_bryk.html Nagaok, J. and Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: the effects of retention. Charting Reform in Chicago Series. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL Sebring, P.A. and Bryk, A.S. (1993). Charting reform in Chicago schools: Pluralistic policy research. New Directions in Program Evaluation, 39, 13-28. 8 Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Q., and Lupperscu, S. (2006). The essential support for school improvement. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL. http://www.consortiumchi"go.org Sebring, P.B., Bryk, A.S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL http://www.consortium-chi"go.org Module 3: A.The Federal Level ED.gov (2008). Growth models: Ensuring grade-level proficiency for all students by 2014. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/proficiency.html ED.gov (2007). K–8 charter schools: Closing the achievement gap. Stronger accountability. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/print/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.html#amistad ED.gov (2007). Final regulations on modified academic achievement standards (MAAS). Special Education & Rehabilitative Services. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/modachieve-summary.html Ed.gov (2004). Secretary Paige issues new policy for calculating participation rates under No Child Left Behind. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/03/03292004.html Q and A related to NCLB. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html Spellings, M. (2008). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. US Department of Education http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.pdf U.S. News Report (August 7, 2010). Newly minted Education Secretary Arne Duncan has big plans for improving the nation's schools. Online edition. State Level (Virginia) Virginia Department of Education. (2008). Mathematics Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools – February 2009. Grade Five (Test Blueprint). Virginia Department of Education,. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government. Virginia Department of Education. (). Testing & Standards of Learning (SOL). (XX). Virginia Department of Education,. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/ Virginia Department of Education.(2008). Virginia Assessments cut scores established by the Board of Education Standards of Learning tests. Virginia Department of Education. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Assessment/Solss3.pdf Virginia Department of Education.(2008). Modified standard diploma grade level tests cut scores. Virginia Department of Education. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government. District Level (Fairfax, VA) 9 Fairfax County Public Schools. (2008). Testing. Web Page. http://www.fcps.edu/testing.htm Fairfax County Public Schools. (2010). Continuous improvement report. Module 4: Accountability Baker, E.L., Linn, R.L., Herman, J.L., and Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems. Policy Brief 5. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy5.pdf Bernstein, Kenneth J. (2010 March 2) Review of The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Diane Ravitch. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev892.pdf Betebenner, D.W. (2009). Growth, standards and accountability. San Francisco: Creative Commons. [email protected] Blake, Jan E. (2010 February 4) Review of Collateral Damage by Sharon L. Nichols & David C. Berliner. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev884.pdf Briggs, K.L. (June 3, 2008).[ Letter to the States’ Chief State School Officer]. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. United States Department of Education. Brown, William L. (2010 June 15) Review of NCLB at the Crossroads by Rebell, Michael A and Wolff, Jessica R. (Eds.) . Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev937.pdf La Marca, Paul M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability criterion. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(21). Retrieved August 6, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=21 Newton, Lynne. (2010 February 25) Review of Moving Every Child Ahead by Michael A. Rebell & Jessica R. Wolff. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev891.pdf Hammon, L.D. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving the 21 Century standards of learning. Standford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education-Research Brief. edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/perf_assessment.html Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability:Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations. CSE Report 601. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH601.pdf Linn, R.L. (1998). Assessment and Accountability. CSE Technical Report 490. Bolder CO: University of Colorado at Boulder. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH490.pdf National Center for Educational Statistics. The nation's report card. About NAEP. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ High-stakes Testing Position Statements: American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement on highstakes testing in Pre-K – 12 education. http://www.aera.net/?id=378 American Evaluation Association (2002). High Stakes Position Statement: AEA http://www.eval.org/hst3.htm 10 American Psychological Association. (2001). Appropriate use of high-stakes tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thomas, C.L. (1999). Educational assessment in the United States: In impetus for school reform. A Paper Presented at the 3rd Annual National Convention of the Association of Professors of Portuguese, Porto, Portugal Mapping: De Mello, V.B. & Blankenship, C. (2009). Mapping State proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005-2007. Research and Development Report. NCES 2010-458. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education. The Nation’s Report Card. (2003). Frequently Asked Questions. Comparison between NAEP and State mathematics assessment results: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2008475.asp Alignment: Case, B.J., Jorgensen, M.A. & Zucker, S. (2004). Alignment in educational assessment. Pearson Assessment Report. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education, Inc. Articulation: Lissitz, Robert W. & Huynh Huynh. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(10). Retrieved August 6, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10 . Ferrara, S., Johnson, E., & Chen, W. (2004). Vertically moderated standards: logic, procedures, and likely classification accuracy of judgmentally articulated performance standards. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Published at Applied Measurement in Education, 1532-4818, Volume 18, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 35 – 59. Linking Student Assessment Data with Teacher Performance: Kpermintz, H. (). Value-added assessment of teacher: The empirical evidence. Bolder CO: University of Colorado at Boulder http://epicpolicy.org/files/Chapter11Kupermintz-Final.pdf Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S.R. & Krone, E. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluation. Findings from the first year of the Excellence in Teaching Project in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute. Recommended National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). High-stakes tests . http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=6356 Furhman, S. H., and Elmore, R. F. (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press. (Required Textbook) Siskin, L.S. (2003). Accountability Inside Schools AISR_VUE_Siskin_article.htm (Blackboard: Documents, Scheduled Readings & Cited References) 11 American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Revised 1999. Developed jointly by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thomas, R. M. (2005). High-stakes testing. Coping with collateral damage. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Required Textbook) 12
© Copyright 2024