Accessibility or Accountability? Annotated Bibliography Example
Words: 3095Annotated Bibliography
Aske, D. R., Connolly, L. S., & Corman, R. R. (2013). Accessibility or accountability? The rhetoric and reality of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 14(3), 107.
The study evaluates educational accountability and how the idea that all children should have access to public education is a driving factor in policy. Factors such as class, race religion, and American values are reviewed in respect to how they influence the policies. The study makes the argument that education should be assimilative and equitable and that education should be structured to create productive citizens. The level of accountability study finds how invested efforts are placed in education reform policy and how these same efforts work within No Child Left Behind policy. The policy is evaluated within a historical context. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision is examined, as well as common school, and the uniquely pubic functions of the public schooling system. This study assesses the development of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its transition from being the most recent reauthorization of ESEA.
Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The black-white achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives (18), 1-99.
This study examines much of an achievement gap persists between black and white students between 2000 and 2007 according to the NAEP grade 8 math assessment. The data was collected from 10 states that had school poverty stratum. This study sought to determine if the achievement gap has grown smaller since the implementation of the NCLB legislation. The findings suggest that the gap is still large and the implementation of the NCLB has had very little impact on the achievement of black students. The final recommendation was that educational policy reform must be implemented to see a greater achievement in students’ overall educational gain.
Deangelis, K.J., White, B.R., Presley, J.B. (2010). The changing distribution of teacher qualification across schools: A statewide perspective post-nclb.
The study sought to determine if new highly qualified teacher provisions incorporated by the NCLB act has an impact on student learning. The study was conducted in schools in Illinois from 2001 through 2006. There was a spike in teacher qualification in low income schools during this time frame. There were positive improvements in teacher qualifications, but those improvements were not linked to student achievement. The final conclusion was that there needs to be a concrete way of determining if teacher credentials are linked to student achievement.
Donnor, J. & Shockley, Kmt. G. (2010). Leaving us behind: A political economic interpretation of nclb and the miseducation of african american males. Educational Foundations (24), 43-54.
This article discuses the disconnect between public school assessment policies and the desired teaching practices in accordance to NCLB. The authors believe that if the way teachers are teaching and assessing black males were changed, the students’ success rates would rise. The researchers used only Title 1 schools to gather data because the majority of these schools have a high population of black males. It was concluded that current federal education policies will have a dramatic effect on black males having an opportunity to be a part of the post industrial workforce. NCLB focuses on curriculum and standardized testing which is not aligned with today’s industrial world.
Drasgow, E., Lowery, K. A., & Yell, M. L. (2005). No child left behind and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 29(3), 130. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/proedcw/focus
This study assesses the development of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its transition from being the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. United States President George W. Bush and how he worked with the Department of Education is evaluated. The report shows he implemented actions to improve the federal funding was regulated in an effort to insure that each student in the public school system was able to achieve grade level learning goals in a classroom taught by a highly qualified teachers. The study provides information on the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). The stipulation regarding how IASA managed the federal funding established for states under ESEA is also evaluated. The study reveals that ESEA was established to develop high quality academic content standards in each state, but despite this, there was no reported increase of student achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading.
Forte, E., & edCount, LLC. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88.
In this study, the researchers sought to prove that schools are identified by their improvement status will increase student learning by more rigorous instruction. The researchers gathered information from across the United States about how each individual school implemented, monitored, and assessed student achievement after the implementation of NCLB. The researchers believe that some of the long term goals of NCLB are outlandish and needs to be adjusted by federal government officials. However, they did find that NCLB was a good tool to ensure that all schools across the United States had common standards and ways of assessing if students have mastered those standards. Their final conclusion was that NCLB has fallen short of the goal it attempted to reach.
Gardiner, M., Canfield-Davis, K., & Anderson, K. (2008). Urban school principals and the No Child Left Behind Act, Urban Review, 41, 141-160.
This study wanted to determine how multicultural and urban schools are responding to the requirements of NCLB and it strenuous requirements. The participants were six urban school principals (four elementary and two secondary). This qualitative study gathered their responses to how they are trying to reach the requirements of NCLB. The researchers concluded that more emphasis and strategies should be given to multicultural and urban school leaders in the effective way to implement NCLB. Of the six principals, only three were able to successfully implement NCLB, while the other three focused only on the NCLB mandates. They concluded that there is too much focus on the test scores of subgroups (i.e. free/reduced lunch, special education, racial groups, etc.), yet there is little emphasis placed on other groups and how NCLB affects student learning.
Guisbond, L., & National Center for Fair & Open testing (2012) NCLB’s lost decade for educational progress: What can we learn from this policy failure? National Center For Fair & Open Testing (Fairtest)
This review of NCLB after a 10 year run indicates that NCLB has failed at reaching its goals. Results show that NCLB has neither increased academic or reduced achievement gaps across America. Because NCLB functions on a one size fit all frame work, it has obviously missed gains that some schools have made because it did not test in those areas. The data was collected from schools across the United States. The study concluded with the need for alternative strategies that would improve school performance in areas with needy students.
Howell, J., S. (2011). What influences students’ need for remediation in college? Evidence from California. Journal of Higher Education. (82)3. 292-314.
This study assesses the value of No Child Left Behind especially in respect to how it impacts remediation for students. The study focuses primarily on student needs and whether those needs are being met. This study sought to determine if the achievement gap has grown smaller since the implementation of the NCLB legislation. As students gradually make ascend to the college level through the policies put in place based on the No Child Left Behind policy, the relationship between their need for remediation in college and the attributes of their high school become more clear. The study makes a connection finding that the quality of education specifically in the high school level can be traced to lags in education that occur in middle school and other pre-high school courses . The analysis provided by the study can be beneficial to this research in that it shows there are reduced remediation needs by students from high schools with more educated and experienced teachers, but there are higher remediation needs by students with teachers operating on waivers or emergency credentials.
Lee, J., Shin, H., Amo, L.C. (2013). Evaluating the impact of nclb school interventions in new york state: Does one size fit all? Education Policy Analysis Archives (21), 67.
This study examined the following indicators: school transfers, supplementary education services, corrective action, planning for restructuring, and restructuring as efficacy measurement in the implementation of NCLB. The researchers focused on schools in New York only and tracked whether or not each school met AYP. The researchers concluded that NCLB is not a fit all deal. The Policy does not take into consideration the school context and demographic background plays an important role in student achievement.
Left behind: Low-income students under the no child left behind Act. (2008). Journal of Law & Education. (37)4. 589-596
The above study attempts to provided clarity on how low incomes students are truly handled through the Now Child Left Behind Act. The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and its effectiveness at ensuring children have an equal, fair, and impactful opportunity to acquire a high-quality education. The study argues that there is a large portion of the population that is being deprived of quality education and that adequate implementation of the policy me at fault or it could be the effectiveness of the policy itself. The study finds that in some cases the policy may actually inhibit the path towards education. I this is true it means the main population the program is designed to support is not being assisted by the program. This is primarily low income students who attend poor performing institutions incapable of satisfying their rea core needs. The study looks at their declining grades and provides recommendations for attaining academic proficiency.
Maleyko, G., & Gawlik, M. A. (2011). No Child Left Behind: what we know and what we need to know. Education, 131(3), 600-624.
In Gawlik & Maleyko’s 2011 study, the authors assess accountability provisions, specifically those found within Title I of the NCLB legislation; measurement concerns with the use of AYP to evaluate school effectiveness. There are also benefits of AYP that are assessed as well as the unintended consequences. The data the authors provide is qualitative and empirically on data extracted from a theoretical literature review research. The report finds that within No Child Left Behind policy there is a lack of consistency, issues of reliability, score manipulation, educational triage. Reliability issues are found to be a major problem within the policy making it flawed and diminishing its efficacy. The study attempts to focus on basic skills vs higher level thinking and innovation and how they are influenced by the standardized testing process. Annual yearly progress (AYP), is found to be a significant concern within education practitioner discussions and while NCLB creates an increased focus on student accountability at the school, at the state and school district level. The authors note that structures need to be put in place to ensure a capacity for accountability.
Miller, C. L. (2010). District leadership for science education: Using k-12 departments to support elementary science education under nclb. Science Educator, 9(2), 22-30.
This article contrasted two case studies in school districts on the effectiveness of elementary science in response to NCLB. The researchers essentially met with central office administrators in a semi-structured interview. Two districts were chosen to implement differing strategies; one implemented NCLB strategies and the other implemented another form of structure. The results indicated that those who used NCLB strategies showed academic improvement. The researcher concluded that this was so because many elementary school teachers admit that they teach more of the subjects they personally enjoy, while they teach less of those they did not enjoy as much. With NCLB, teachers had to follow those guidelines for the amount of time they must spend teaching each subject.
Mills, J. I. (2008). A legislative overview of No Child Left Behind. New Directions for Evaluation, (117), 9-20. doi: 10.1002/ev.248
In Mills 2008 study on accountability throughout the years, he does a thorough examination of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The act which was passed in 2002 is legislation which proposes federal policy that could potentially influence the Lyndon Johnson Great Society programs. The key point that the study makes is that, “federal legislation…consists of the legislation itself but also the procedures established by the U.S. Department of Education and interpretations of the legislation at the local education-authority level (Mills, 2008).” The specific procedures and how they are implemented is delegated to the states and further contributes to why transparency in monitoring accountability education programs is difficult. Mills notes that in regards to NCLB reauthorization there are two main pillars which legislators hone in on, specifically, “accountability requirements and application of rigorous scientific research (Mills, 2008).” Potential reforms to NCLB legislation are discussed based on this criteria, but the key argument of the Mill’s report is that the actually success of these reforms it ultimately in the hands of the school administrators enforcing the policies.
NCLB, School-Based Instructional Policy and Decision-Making: A Proposed Research Agenda By: Kaniuka, Theodore S., College Student Journal, 01463934, 20090901, Vol. 43, Issue 3
This paper discussed whether or not NCLB actually improved student achievement. The author suggests that some students have benefited from NCLB, but so many others have shown no improvement. The idea that schools are being restricted to using only research based practices to improve student achievement is puzzling many educators. Although the practices are research based, what type of students and systems were the research based upon. By using these practices on minority and economically disadvantaged students, educators are limiting these students’ academic opportunities. Concluding, the author felt that research based practices should be implemented only on student bodies that fit the profile of the study group.
Paul, D. G. (2013). Rap and orality in a post-nclb/alec world. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 461-469.
The author expresses his thoughts on how NCLB standards prevent literacy teachers from being innovative and original because the guidelines are too strict. NCLB provides elementary school teachers with prompted guidelines as to what they should say and how they should respond to students when teaching reading. The author believes that this does not allow for genuinely learning to take place. Strategic teaching must be implemented by using the best pedagogical practices for the type of students the teacher is teaching. The findings are reported by a veteran teaching and her experiences in the classroom using the NCLB mandates. Finally, she believes that NCLB attempts to remove certain cultures from the classroom because of the way the prompts do not acknowledge certain cultural differences.
Perie, P., Scott, M., & Brian, G. (2007). A framework for considering interim assessments. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/ConsideringInterimAssess_MAP07.pdf
In this study the authors provide back history on the advantages of interim assessment. The authors take time to give some back history on the IASA and explain how this new act grows out of ESEA. The authors notes that, the standards-based reform movement, was first written in federal law as a product of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) They further note that this “resulted in the wide-spread use of summative assessments designed to measure students’ performance at specific points in time. Under IASA, testing was required at three grades: once each at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 required a significant increase in the prevalence of these large-scale summative tests (Perie Marion and Gong, 2007).” This sheds light on how No Child left behind would initially evolve from IASA.
Pinder, P.J. (2013). Exploring and understanding maryland’s math and science teachers perspectives on nclb and increase testing: Employing a phenomenological inquiry approach. Education, 133(3), 298-302.
This study sought to explain how some of Maryland’s math and science teachers felt about NCLB and increasing testing. Four teachers participated in the study using an inquiry approach. There were two math and two science teachers. The four teachers taught in urban school systems. The study conveyed that three of the teachers felt the increased testing was ineffective. All of the teachers agreed that the goals of NCLB were unrealistic. The researcher concluded that more research needed to be conducted to determine how other educators feel about NCLB and what can be done to improve the outcomes of the NCLB standards.
Schul, J., E. (2011). Unintended consequences: fundamental flaws that plague the no child left behind affiliation: Ohio Northern University. (1) 2-2.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and its good intentions to be a primary support system for low income populations that need bipartisan legislation to keep t efficient has a questionable foundation according t these authors. The study reveals the real impact regarding how the policy impacts public schools was not taken into consideration. The fundamental flaws that function within the policy are examined. The study also reviews the Congressional reauthorization process through the Obama administration and how it has restructured the policy. The study aims to shed light on four of the main fundamental flaws of NCLB and how these flaws have kept it from keeping schools accountable. These consequences are unintentional and they are key aspects of legislation. The study offers succinct critique of the policy that entails its core tenants. This is a sound study that provides this research lets the unintended harmful effects of the policy on the education industry.
Wang, L., Beckett. G. H., & Brown, B. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement In Education. 19(4), 305-328.
Standardized tests in school systems, specifically as it relates to the controversies that surround them are reviewed in this study. The article offers a critical assessment in school systems has been the center of debate for decades. The opponents of standardized tests have overwhelmed the public forum, only a handful of scholars and practitioners have argued in defense of standardized tests. This article provides a critical synthesis, shedding light on key controversial issues on state-mandated assessments relative to of student achievement in the midst of school accountability reform. The study delivers a blueprint of the education system. By presenting an in-depth and balanced synthesis, of documents published within the policy that breaks down the way 4 interlocking cornerstones of the reform works. The structured framework assessment this study provides enables the research to measure how standardized testing impacts accountability. The controversial framework assessment aspect of the study reveals how it drives reform, standards-based assessment, assessment-centered accountability, and high-stakes consequences. This study sought to determine if the achievement gap has grown smaller since the implementation of the NCLB legislation.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!