Research Committee: Research in Mathematics Education: Multiple Methods for Multiple Uses

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-240
Author(s):  
Michael Battista ◽  
Timothy Boerst ◽  
Jere Confrey ◽  
Eric Knuth ◽  
Margaret S. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Randomized Field Trials ◽  
Multiple Uses ◽  
Time And Energy ◽  
Research In Mathematics Education

I do not think any thoughtful researcher today believes that experiments or randomized field trials are the “gold standard” for addressing all the important questions in educational research. Yet, because these designs are now required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and are being strongly encouraged in other federal legislation and funding initiatives, scholars, practitioners, parents, and researchers must devote time and energy to fighting these designs when they are inappropriate or irrelevant, which is often the case. Despite long-standing objections from prominent methodologists and reservations expressed by national groups and committees, key policymakers in the federal government are encouraging the pursuit of experimental designs primarily or exclusively (Eisenhart, 2005, p. 246).

Why Connecticut Sued the Federal Government over No Child Left Behind

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Formative Assessments ◽  
Closing The Achievement Gap ◽  
Financial Responsibility ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Summative Assessments

In April 2005, Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal filed the first lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education over the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this essay, Attorney General Blumenthal presents Connecticut's reasons for legally challenging NCLB. He argues that prior to ratification of the act, Connecticut had been nationally recognized for its assessment program aimed at closing the achievement gap and increasing accountability. NCLB mandates that require testing at all grade levels would force Connecticut to replace its formative assessments with summative assessments and divert their limited educational funds from supplementary educational programs to the expansion of the state's testing office. Blumenthal argues that NCLB's unfunded testing mandates are illegal and may prove detrimental to Connecticut students' academic achievement. While he strongly supports the goals of NCLB, Blumenthal concludes that if schools are to achieve those goals, it is imperative that the federal government allow for flexibility and assume financial responsibility for implementation of NCLB.

Look Back: The feds, the states, and Kappan

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Teresa Preston
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Federal Mandates ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Federal Department ◽  
Education Act ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

Across the decades, the balance of power between the federal government, states, and local districts has shifted numerous times, and Kappan authors have weighed in on each of those shifts. Kappan Managing Editor Teresa Preston traces those shifts, beginning with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which gave the federal government a larger role in public education. Further expansion occurred under the Carter administration, with the launch of the new federal Department of Education. As the new department continued operations under Reagan, its priorities expanded, but actual decision-making authority reverted to states. States, in turn, began involving themselves more with instructional and curricular matters, a trend that eventually made its way back to the federal level, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, federal mandates had the effect of requiring state and local levels to take on additional responsibilities, without necessarily having the capacity to do so. This capacity issue remains a concern under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Real Improvement for Real Students: Test Smarter, Serve Better

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
BETTY STERNBERG
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Standard Testing ◽  
Multiple Resources ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
The Right ◽  
Improving Student Achievement ◽  
Limited Usefulness ◽  
Formative Testing

In this essay, Betty J. Sternberg argues that the increased money and time spent on meeting the summative testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) adds little to the existing "gold standard" testing conducted by the State of Connecticut. Sternberg highlights the challenges faced by one state in meeting the requirements of NCLB: She identifies the diversion of multiple resources, the limited usefulness of summative testing, and the inability of testing companies to meet increased demands as impediments to improving student achievement. Using Connecticut's program-focused accountability model, Sternberg posits that the right combination of formative testing in conjunction with summative testing and supplementary programming ensures the academic success of all students.

No Child Left Behind

2011 ◽  
pp. 634-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junko Yamamoto
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Title I ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal Funding ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Elementary And Secondary Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Education Association ◽  
Education Act

The Federal Government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 to enable the federal government to finance public schools (Paige, 2004). This law was signed by President Johnson and has been revised every 5 years since then (Wisconsin Education Association Council, n.d.). ESEA started the provision of Title I funding, the federal money given to a school district to assist students who are falling behind academically (Public Schools of North Carolina, n.d.). President George W. Bush signed the ESEA, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) (P.L.107-110), on January 8, 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). This provision designated that total federal funding of $116,250 million was to be dispensed between 2002 and 2007. The Act was strongly supported by both parties: the final vote was 87 to 10 in the Senate and 381 to 41 in the House (Paige, 2004). This article will address the necessity for teacher training caused by the educational institution’s accountability imposed by No Child Left Behind, and the stronger need to assist disabled learners affirmed by the law.

scholarly journals On ideology, causal inference and the reification of statistical methods: Reflections on "Examining instruction, achievement and equity with NAEP mathematics data."

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Harold Wenglinsky
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Causal Inference ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Quantitative Methodology ◽  
Causal Inferences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
The Third

The purpose of this article is to comment on the prior article entitled "Examining Instruction, Achievement and Equity with NAEP mathematics data," by Sarah Theule Lubienski. That article claims that a prior article by the author suffered from three weaknesses: (1) An attempt to justify No Child Left Behind (NCLB); (2) drawing causal inferences from cross-sectional data; (3) and various statistical quibbles. The author responds to the first claim, by indicating that any mention of NCLB was intended purely to make the article relevant to a policy journal; to the second claim, by noting his own reservations about using cross-sectional data to draw causal inferences; and to the third claim by noting potential issues of quantitative methodology in the Lubienski article. He concludes that studies that use advanced statistical methods are often so opaque as to be difficult to compare, and suggests some advantages to the quantitative transparency that comes from the findings of randomly controlled field trials.

Why ESSA has been reform without repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Andrew Saultz ◽  
Jack Schneider ◽  
Karalyn McGovern
Keyword(s):  
Student Achievement ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Equity In Education ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
Accountability Movement ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act ◽  
Reporting Data ◽  
Over Time

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was designed to remedy the wrongs of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Yet Andrew Saultz, Jack Schneider, and Karalyn McGovern explain that, so far, it has failed to fundamentally alter how the federal government interacts with schools. They discuss the need for federal authority over issues of equity in education and how federal authority has expanded over time, leading to the accountability movement, which, under NCLB, required schools to provide quantifiable measures of student achievement. Although ESSA was touted as a return of control to the states, states are still held accountable for testing requirements, reporting data, and sanctioning underperformance. The authors recommend instead a model of rigid flexibility, in which centralized offices might require certain activities but allow schools some choice in determining specific goals.

A Close Look at No Child Left Behind

ASHA Leader ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Left Behind
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document