Quality in an Age of Accountability, Research Paper Example

Since the ratification of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, school districts in the United States have been challenged in meeting both the demands of standardization of curricula in the context of restricted fiscal allocations (U.S. Department of Education). Despite efforts to find adequate solutions toward distributive equity teaching resources and in designation of instructional technologies needed to meet developmental and learning criteria outlined within the various subject matter, aggregate findings reveal that with exception of Asian and Pacific Islander populations, advancement in student’ achievement on standardized tests, and especially college and university SAT entrance exams, scoring has not increased dramatically, and even declined in some segments.

According to the U.S. Department of Education in the Schools Turnaround, 2009 report legislative blueprint for reforms amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with a revision signed by President Obama, defining measures toward solution to insufficient scores on standardized exams. The revision indicates that rates must be both administrative (i.e. fiscal) and standards based in order to shore up the distance between the poorest scoring schools, and the highest scoring schools that are already rewarded by policy for “making significant progress” (10).

Significant to the conundrum facing school districts around the country is the interpretative distinctions of the Act between states as regional applications of the legislation’s key articles of policy are put into mandate, and ultimately in effect. If federal preemption works in most cases, in the education sector the uncanny truth is that state rule application has the tendency to intervene precisely where allocations and constraints should matter most, but often don’t. Case in point is the mandate of the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) in the State of Florida where I currently reside and work.

Table 1

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. NCES 2010-013, Chapter 2.

a: Data are for seniors who took the SAT any time during their high school years through March of their senior year. If a student took a test more than once, the most recent score was used. The SAT was formerly known as the Scholastic Assessment Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Possible scores on each part of the SAT range from 200 to 800. The critical reading section was formerly known as the verbal section. The writing section was introduced in March 2005.

Endorsement of the FCAT has been met by hot debate, and the assumption of universal rule application stated in the U.S. Department of Education protocol whereby, “all states and schools will have challenging and clear standards of achievement and accountability for all children and effective strategies for reaching those standards” may be put to the test as comparative outcomes are addressed.  Motives for school systems and educators to adopt methods to demonstrate standardized student achievement scores should at least meet baseline criteria.

In 1996 the cost to Florida to develop, implement and maintain the FCAT for one K-12 student’ was $4.44 per year. In 2008 the cost had risen to $19.44 per student and a total cost to the state of $51,577,368. Both local and state levels have disclosed attempts to manipulate findings and data to display more positive evaluation results. As the stakes are raised to show successful testing, the monetary and political rewards tax the already debilitated system further. Many opponents whom share this view argue: FCAT or FAT CAT?

The FCAT began in 1998 as part of Florida’s overall plan to increase student achievement by implementing higher standards. It is administered to students in Grades 3-11, consists of criterion-referenced tests in mathematics, reading, science, and writing, which measure student progress to meet state benchmarks. It actually precedes the federal “No Child Left Behind” mandated in 2001 by three years. Many states looked to Florida and its replicable approach as a recommended model for restructuring the learning process toward testing achievement amongst underserved student populations.

Since ratification of the FCAT mandate, accountability has become the provenance of both school and student. The dual model of ‘accomplishment’ creates a systemic feedback loop toward dialogue and review. Annual state report cards rank public schools on a scale from A to F based on students’ annual performance each year. Schools that earned high marks received funding bonuses, schools that do not are subject to implement state-sanctioned reforms.

During the decade the FCAT has been in place both proponents and opponents have argued over the validity and reliability of the tests and its contribution to the state educational process. As Ladner and Lips argue,

“According to research conducted by the conservative Manhattan Institute, Florida graduated only 56 percent of its students in 2001, compared to the national average of 70 percent. The disparity in data is attributed to the fact that Florida counts students who opt to take the General Education Development (GED) as graduates, which skews graduation rates.”

 Even still, regardless of testing performance and competency in gauging student’ achievement levels, both sides have agreed to the added pressure the dual system places on schools to attain A rankings as the results impact both public consensus, and potential to maximize state and federal fund procurement (Ladner and Lips).

Although federal policy is quite explicit, how and what extent state and local school districts follow the guidelines according to what might be fiscally sustainable is the most obvious deterrent, and can lead to pressure on schools to adopt methods that can most readily and consistently demonstrate some level of credible evidence of student learning – even if not competitive toward raising the bar of the student populations’ nationwide test score ranking. To this end how important is an index if it is incompatible on the grounds of allocations, and who sets those standards as rule become application (Kohn, 4)?

As educators, teachers set standards as a matter of praxis in the classroom. For any given course in any given semester however this kind of assessment and grading policies can vary greatly from teacher to teacher. Departmental assessment standards add another layer of measurement, that must be adhered to by teachers and provide a common ground toward professional consideration and assessment and grading policies. In any institution what happens on the ground is subject to policy, and formation of best practices and stipulated rules is an inherent aspect of administrative oversight to the latter two models of applied standardization.  In 2009, Education Secretary Arne Duncan pointed to the lack of parity across the board in her endorsement of setting a universal standard for education in the United States, arguing that the current state-by-state system has produced uneven results in which some students “are totally, inadequately prepared to go into a competitive university, let alone graduate.”

If ours is the ‘age of accountability’ how might we demonstrate effectiveness of instruction relative to student achievement? Are teachers responsible for student outcomes on standardized exams?  Traditional education models would posit an affirmative response to the aforementioned, and alternative models only vary slightly in that educators have moved from the purveyors of knowledge to classificatory distinction within education theory as ‘facilitators’ in the ‘learner-centered’ classroom. In interest of providing all students with equal and substantive educational opportunities, most teachers look to new application methodologies and instruments for facilitating student achievement objectives by their own volition. School districts are also finding that alternative approaches to instructional learning, and in particular, the offerings of new media technologies to be highly effective.

Research has shown that school districts largely comprised of target schools or designated as serving underserved populations stand to benefit the most from the support of web based, animated instructional learning tools (SEG Research). Outcomes to those studies indicate that those students receiving the least in terms of at home technology based tutorials are able to meet peer scores when offered identical options to students with home access. Districts are rightly pressured to create standardized settings that might otherwise substantiate equivalent access to those resources. In addition, multi-scale assessment models used to evaluate the outcomes to pilot studies offer new insights into the possibility of building depth instruments into every level of education institutions, so that a coherent picture of why standardized training approaches work or do not work. Knowledge sharing networks amongst education colleagues might be more effectively used then, for peer-to-peer practice dialogues on solution oriented options. Integration of administrative prioritization will benefit from this type of systemization as the need for accountability rises, and institutions are under fire to benchmark achievements as seen in Florida.

The $14.5 billion Congressional request for the reauthorized Title I, Part A, Grants to Local Educational Agencies by the U.S. Department of Education intended for reallocation to ESEA programs is one such case where dramatic changes might be realized in the lowest-performing schools. Implementation of the program is meant to offer consecutive rather than ‘band aid’ intervention in corrective action of each state’s lowest-performing Challenge school “identified as in need of specific assistance because they are not making progress toward improvement” (U.S. Department of Education,  2). Ultimately rule ordering in and between states in the face of the overarching expectations of the NCLB Act is superseded by the capacity of the state at all levels to seek remedy to the rather dire inequity in distribution of investment of monies and sustainable programmatic administration so that American student’ performance might begin to be proximate to the Act’s targeted goals for excellence in education, and so too teachers trapped by fund allocation earmarked solely for traditional learning resource.

Works Cited

No Child Left Behind Act, 2001. U.S. Department of Education. Web. 7 July 2010.

Kohn, A.  Debunking the Case for National Standards. Education Digest, 75 (8), 4-7, 2010. Web 7 July 2010.

Ladner, M. and Lips, D. How ‘No Child Left Behind’ Threatens Florida’s Successful Education Reforms, 2009, 7 January. Web 7 July 2010.

Middaugh, M. Creating a culture of evidence: Academic accountability at the institutional level. New Directions for Higher Education, (140), 15-28, 2007.  Web 7 July 2010.

Olson, L., & Hendrie, C. Pathways to progress. Education Week, 17(17), 32, 1998. Web 7 July 2010.

Schools Turnaround. U.S. Department of Education, 2009. Web. 7 July 2010.

The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test®. Florida Department of Education, 2010. Web 7 July 2010.

The Study of the Effectiveness of BrainPOP 2009. New Hope: SEG Research. Web. 7 July 2010.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 2009.  NCES 2010-013, Chapter 2. Web. 7 July 2010.