Review of "Stuck Schools"

Lee's review of this report finds it relies on misleading data and unreliable methodology. Lee indicates that, "the report's methods are so simplistic, arbitrary and poorly fitting to the report's own assumptions that it is more harmful to sound policymaking than helpful.

Jaekyung Lee and Namsook Kim, “Aliens” on College Campuses: Immigrant and International Students’ Educational Opportunities and Challenges

We would like to start with a pop quiz. What is one of the common background characteristics of the following people (in categories 1 and 2 each)? (1) Madeline Albright (Former US Secretary of State), Kamala Harris (US Senator, Vice President Candidate), Sergey Brin (Google Co-Founder) (2) Kofi Annan (Former UN Secretary-General, Nobel Peace Laureate), Juan Manuel Santos (Former President of Columbia, Nobel Peace Laureate), Robin Yanhong Li (Baidu Co-Founder

Vai Common Core que vai levar a América para a corrida para ser o número um? Acompanhando alterações em normas estaduais, práticas escolares e desempenho do aluno

This study examines the trends of the U.S. states’ reading and math proficiency standards before and after the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and explores their impact on school practices and student achievement. Drawing on the 2003-15 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grades 4 and 8 assessment and survey datasets, the study gives new insights into the CCSS policy challenges and outcomes. The states that adopted CCSS raised the rigor of proficiency standards for their student assessments, reversing ‘race to the bottom’ trend during the earlier period of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). However, the CCSS states failed to improve schools’ alignment of ELA and math programs with state/district assessments and also failed to improve students’ reading and math achievement more than the non-CCSS counterparts. The Common Core has helped America race to the top for performance standards, but not for performance outcomes yet.Este estudio examina las tendencias de los estándares de competencia en lectura y matemáticas en los estados de lo Estados Unidos antes y después de la adopción de los Estándares Estatales Comúnes (CCSS) y explora su impacto en las prácticas escolares y el logro estudiantil. El estudio, basado en los conjuntos de datos de evaluaciones y encuestas de los grados 4 y 8 de la Evaluación Nacional del Progreso Educativo (NAEP) 2003-15, ofrece nuevas perspectivas sobre los retos y resultados de la política de CCSS. Los estados que adoptaron la CCSS elevaron el rigor de los estándares de competencia para sus evaluaciones estudiantiles, invirtiendo la tendencia de la "carrera hacia el fondo" durante el período anterior de la Ley de No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Sin embargo, los estados de la CCSS no lograron mejorar la alineación de las escuelas de los programas ELA y matemáticas con las evaluaciones estatales / distritales y tampoco lograron a mejorar los logros de lectura y matemáticas de los estudiantes más que los de que no participaron en CCSS. El Núcleo Común ha ayudado a América a llegar a la cima para los estándares de rendimiento, pero no para los resultados de rendimiento.O presente estudo analisa padrões tendências de proficiência em leitura e matemática nos estados dos Estados Unidos antes e depois da adoção de normas estaduais Common Core (CCSS) e explora o seu impacto sobre as práticas escolares e desempenho do aluno. O estudo, baseado em conjuntos de dados de avaliações e estudos dos graus 4 e 8 da Avaliação Nacional do Progresso Educacional (NAEP) 2003-15, oferece novas perspectivas sobre os desafios e resultados da política CCSS. Estados que adotaram o CCSS aumentou o rigor dos padrões de competência para as suas avaliações do estudante, invertendo a tendência de “corrida para o fundo” durante o período da Lei de No Child Left Behind (NCLB). No entanto, os estados da CCSS não conseguiu melhorar o alinhamento das escolas em ELA e programas de matemática com avaliações estaduais / distritais e também não conseguiu melhorar o desempenho em leitura e matemática estudantes do que aqueles que não participou CCSS. O Common Core ajudou América para chegar ao topo para os padrões de desempenho, mas ainda não deu resultados

Exploring Data and Methods to Assess and Understand the Performance of SSI States: Learning from the Cases of Kentucky and Maine

The proposed study will identify and fill the gaps between currently available data and methods and desired ones in assessing and understanding the performance of SSI states. It will address the following research questions:1. What information is available on the academic performance of a system?2. What methodological challenges are posed by multi-level, multi-dimensional time-series data such as the NAEP and state assessments in understanding factors affecting system performance?The researchers will examine these issues in two SSI states, Kentucky and Maine. They will examine whether and/or how the current NAEP and the states\u27 own student assessments can be used to assess systemwide academic performance and determine if the national and state assessments produce consistent results on the proficiency of different groups of students. The study team will compare the results of hierarchical liner modeling methods with conventional methods of data analysis

NEPC Review: Fewer Children Left Behind: Lessons From the Dramatic Achievement Gains of the 1990s and 2000s (Fordham Institute, October 2019)

A Fordham report highlights the historic academic progress of Black and Hispanic groups over the past two decades, at the elementary school level, on the NAEP exam. From this, the report offers the major claim, based on its author&rsquo;s eyeball test, that the academic progress of students of color is attributable &ldquo;mostly&rdquo; to poverty reduction. The report, however, also acknowledges that correlation is not causation and calls for systematic statistical analysis to test the author&rsquo;s proposition. This review responds to that call by examining the validity of the report&rsquo;s arguments around progress and causes, looking to expanded data sources, including both family income and school expenditures. The review notes uneven patterns of achievement among grade levels and refutes the report&rsquo;s claim that flat achievement trends among twelfth graders are a result of dropout reductions.</p

NEPC Review: Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude?

The research report reviewed here concludes that many initially high-achieving students are falling further and further behind over the course of their years in school. The report intends to raise the alarm and to advocate for improved programs for these students. It is, however, a false alarm due to biased methodology and misleading arguments. The report&rsquo;s norm-referenced framework guarantees &ldquo;losers&rdquo; as well as &ldquo;winners,&rdquo; regardless of any true improvement made by the students. Also, the &ldquo;regression to the mean&rdquo; effect produces a false illusion of a tradeoff of over-progress by low achievers at the cost of under-progress for high achievers. Finally, its prescription for stronger school accountability for high-achieving students under NCLB does not follow research-based guidance on how to improve student learning. Other research, including that conducted by this reviewer, finds that students who are high achievers and low achievers make approximately equal academic progress in reading and math, while the achievement gaps remain large. Moreover, a substantial part of the variation in student progress is attributable to teacher and school effects beyond students&rsquo; initial status and background characteristics.</p

NEPC Review: Fewer Children Left Behind: Lessons From the Dramatic Achievement Gains of the 1990s and 2000s (Fordham Institute, October 2019)

A Fordham report highlights the historic academic progress of Black and Hispanic groups over the past two decades, at the elementary school level, on the NAEP exam. From this, the report offers the major claim, based on its author&rsquo;s eyeball test, that the academic progress of students of color is attributable &ldquo;mostly&rdquo; to poverty reduction. The report, however, also acknowledges that correlation is not causation and calls for systematic statistical analysis to test the author&rsquo;s proposition. This review responds to that call by examining the validity of the report&rsquo;s arguments around progress and causes, looking to expanded data sources, including both family income and school expenditures. The review notes uneven patterns of achievement among grade levels and refutes the report&rsquo;s claim that flat achievement trends among twelfth graders are a result of dropout reductions.</p

NEPC Review: Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools? and Monopoly Versus Markets: The Empirical Evidence on Private Schools and School Choice

Public versus private school achievement gaps in general and the effects of school choice on academic outcomes in particular remain controversial issues. The author reviews two recent reports of empirical studies on this topic: one from the Milton &amp; Rose D. Friedman Foundation (MFF) and the other from the Center on Education Policy (CEP). MFF presents its empirical analysis in the context of the larger policy question about the effect of school choice, whereas CEP simply attempts to answer a research question, with policy implications, about a possible public-private school achievement gap. Both studies contribute new evidence to the existing literature through secondary analyses of national high school student datasets &mdash; the Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) databases. The two reports in tandem provide contrasting views and results regarding private school effects. MFF argues that private schooling is more successful at improving student test scores; CEP argues that public and private schools have relatively equal success. This review provides an independent cross-examination of the two data sources and shows that the public-private high school gaps in math achievement gain scores were almost null (in the NELS) or too small to be practically significant (in the ELS). Therefore, the seemingly divergent findings and conclusions at the first glance may have been largely due to their different interpretations rather than real differences in the results. Both studies could have given more useful guidelines for policy and practice if they had examined reasons for observed gaps (or the lack thereof) between public and private schools.</p

Exploring Data and Methods to Assess and Understand the Performance of SSI States: Learning from the Cases of Kentucky and Maine

This study examined two major questions. Do national and state assessments provide consistent information on the performance of state education systems? What accounts for discrepancies between national and state assessment results if they are found? Data came from national and state assessments in grade 4 and grade 8 mathematics from 1992 to 1996 in Maine and Kentucky: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), and Maine Educational Assessment (MEA). Here is a very brief summary of major research findings: 1. NAEP and state assessments reported inconsistent results on the performance level of students in Maine and Kentucky across grades and years. Both MEA and KIRIS appear to have more rigorous performance standards, which reduces the percentage of students identified as performing at Proficient/ Advanced level. These discrepancies may be understood in light of the differences between the NAEP and state assessments in their definitions of performance standards and the methods of standard setting. 2. The size of achievement gaps between different groups of students appeared somewhat smaller on state assessments than on the NAEP. The discrepancies may be explained by examining the differences between NAEP and state assessments in the representation of different student groups in their testing samples, the distribution of item difficulties in their tests, and differential impact of state assessment on low-performing students/schools. 3. The sizes of achievement gains from the states’ own assessments were considerably greater than that of NAEP’s. At the same time, the amount of difference is not always consistent across grades. These gaps and inconsistencies might be related to differences between the national and state assessments in the stakes of testing for school systems and changes in test format that impact test equating. The study findings raise cautions in using either national or state assessment results alone to evaluate the performance of particular state education systems. This report also provides some preliminary analyses of the sources of inconsistencies and discrepancies between national and state assessments. Although these findings may not be generalized to all states, they suggest that policymakers and educators become more aware of the unique features and limitations of current national and state assessments. While the NAEP assessment can be used to cross-check and validate the states’ own assessment results, each state’s unique assessment characteristics (both policy and technical aspects) need to be considered. The study gives us implications for comparing and/or combining the results from national and state assessments