Blazing New Trails - Connexions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

256 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Tomlinson, C. A. & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Wilmore, E. L. (2003). Passing the principal TExES exam: Keys to certification and school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Wiles, J. W. & Bondi, J. C. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). <strong>New</strong> York, NY: Pearson Education.
257 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Structured Inequity: The Intersection of Socioeconomic Status and the Standard Error of Measurement of State Mandated High School Test Results Christopher H. Tienken Assessment-driven education policies are in place in all 50 states in America. The reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, P.L. 89-10), known as the No Child Left Behind Act (No Child Left Behind [NCLB PL 107-110], 2002), signed into law on January 8, 2002, cemented test-based policy making into the education landscape during the first decade of the new millennium. The introduction of the Race To the Top (RTTT) competitive grant program administered by the United States Department of Education (USDOE), and the report, A Blueprint for Reform, The Emergency and Secondary Education Act (ESEA Blueprint) Reauthorization (United States Department of Education, 2010), combined with stated support for the Common Core State Standards by 49 states and territories added more pressure to continue the policy practice of using standardized test results as the sole or deciding factor to evaluate student achievement and public education effectiveness. The policy and practice of using results from statewide standardized tests to evaluate students and education quality is not new (Education Commission of the States, 2008). Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana and cities, such as <strong>New</strong> York and Chicago have used results from standardized state tests to make grade promotion decisions about students for some time, and 23 states used statewide exams to determine high school graduation eligibility in 2009. The practice of using high school exit exams as the deciding factor on whether a student can receive a standard diploma began over 30 years ago in 1978. By 2012, Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma might also use exit exams, bringing the total to 27 states (Education Commission of the States, 2008). School administrators in the 50 states are encouraged to make data-driven decisions based on the results of state mandated tests (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Weiss, 1998). For example, the word “data” appears 230 times in the NCLB Act legislation. The word data appears 16 times, almost once every-other page, in the report (ESEA Blueprint) (United States Department of Education, 2010), and the RTTT program requires administrators to use results from state mandated tests to make decisions about student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Every state education agency has at least one statement related to data-driven decision making on its official web pages, and most have special pages related to data reporting from statewide tests of academic skills and knowledge. School administrators use state assessment results as data to make decisions and judgments about such things as teacher effectiveness, student achievement, and program effectiveness (Burch, 2005; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Penfield, 2010; Roderick & Engel, 2001; Tienken, 2008). All results from statewide tests of academic skills and knowledge contain technical flaws that should preclude them from being used as the only data point or as the deciding factor Christopher H. Tienken, Seton Hall University Author Note: The author would like to thank Minmin Fan and Olivia Rodriguez for their assistance with this manuscript.
Page 1 and 2:
20 NCPEA 11 BLAZING NEW TRAILS: Pre
Page 3 and 4:
NCPEA EXECUTIVE BOARD 2010-2011 Pre
Page 5 and 6:
NCPEA HONOR ROLL OF PRESIDENTS, 194
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contributing Auth
Page 9:
Betty J. Alford, Stephen F. Austin
Page 12 and 13:
xii Yearbook Reviewers Kenneth Rasm
Page 15:
INVITED CHAPTERS PART 1
Page 18 and 19:
4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (3) The fed
Page 21 and 22:
Shadows and Images II 7 LIVING LEGE
Page 23 and 24:
Shadows and Images II 9 see little
Page 25 and 26:
Shadows and Images II 11 settings,
Page 27:
Shadows and Images II 13 into the m
Page 30 and 31:
16 INVITED CHAPTERS Purpose of the
Page 32 and 33:
18 INVITED CHAPTERS do not recogniz
Page 34 and 35:
20 INVITED CHAPTERS Research Proced
Page 36 and 37:
22 INVITED CHAPTERS Political maneu
Page 38 and 39:
24 INVITED CHAPTERS CONCLUSION This
Page 40 and 41:
26 INVITED CHAPTERS Johnson, R. B.,
Page 43 and 44:
Complexities in the Workload of Pri
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
47 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADER
Page 63 and 64:
Professional Learning Communities:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Special Education Director Burnout
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Superintendent Decision-making and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRITICAL ISSUES
Page 125 and 126:
Administrative Functions The Admini
Page 127 and 128:
The Administration of Special Educa
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Page 137 and 138:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING ACADEM
Page 139 and 140:
The Effective Practices and Beliefs
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Creating Shared Meaning in High Per
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
162 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING AC
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Principals and Teachers Stated Beli
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 217 and 218:
Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 219 and 220: Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 225: CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEME
Page 228 and 229: 214 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 289 and 290: The Social Justice Implications of
Page 301 and 302: Name Exton Gateway Experiences with
Page 303 and 304: Experiences with PTELL in Six Illin
Page 309: Part 5 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Page 312 and 313: 298 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 320 and 321:
306 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 333 and 334:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADER
Page 335 and 336:
Service to the Profession: The Forg
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Qualitative Data Service to the Pro
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
show all

Blazing New Trails - Connexions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?