1. No category

SYLLABUS
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM
EDEP 650
High Stakes Assessment and Accountability Systems
Fall 2010
Thursdays, 7:20-10:00 PM
PROFESSOR & CONTACT INFORMATION:
Name:
Charles L. Thomas, Ph.D.
Office phone
703-993-3137
Office location
2006 West Bldg.
Office hours
Mon. (2:30 PM- 3:30 PM) & Wed. (4:30 PM- 6:00 PM), and by
Appointment
Email address
cthomas@gmu.edu
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
A. Prerequisites: None
B. Catalog Description: EDRS 650, High-Stakes Assessment and Accountability
Systems (3:3:0). Focus on school effectiveness tools and accountability models
being implemented on state and national levels. Explores issues and methods
relevant to educational policy, standardized testing, and classroom assessment.
C. Course Description: This course focuses on two critical areas of modern public
school reform in the United States: Accountability and the use of high stakes
assessment systems. In terms of accountability, students will examine the context,
issues, policies, and implementation strategies associated with the modern public
school reform movement embodied in the reauthorization legislation of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). This reauthorization, known as
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has redirected past efforts in public
school reform in a number of significant ways, particularly in connecting
assessment results to consequences related to school policy and action. This
federal law is currently under review with revisions already established under the
Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative undertaken by the Obama Administration and
funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of
2009. The course also will address the policies, issues, methods, and effects of
using high stakes assessment systems to implement public school accountability.
NATURE OF COURSE DELIVERY:
Lectures, small group and whole class discussions will provide the primary basis for inclass learning. Students will engage in independent research and field studies as a means
of acquiring greater personal level of understanding of this area as it pertains to their own
professional areas of interest.
1
Because the issues surrounding public school accountability is very fluid and dynamic, the course
will rely on current selected readings and resources taken from education journals and online
sources, including video clips. I have organized the readings into learning modules that are
accessible on Blackboard (see Blackboard Course Content folder). A monograph detailing the
evaluation of the Chicago Public School Reform Initiative also is required reading. [return]
The schedule of class activities associated with the readings is found in Appendix B. [return]
STUDENT OUTCOMES:
At the end of the course, students will be able to demonstrate:
1.
Comprehension of the basic principles of the Theory of Change as a
conceptual framework for the critical analysis of public school reform
2.
Understanding of the historic and political contexts of the current public
school reform movement;
3.
Understanding of the provisions of NCLB pertaining to accountability
requirements;
4.
Knowledge of some of the scholarly criticisms of NCLB and the new
RTTT imitative from the point of view of schools as complex
organizations;
5.
Overall general knowledge of the accountability methods adopted by the
states to meet the provisions of NCLB;
6.
Specific and in-depth knowledge of a single state’s accountability and
high-stakes testing systems devised in response to NCLB;
7.
Comprehension of the differences between external and internal
accountability processes; and
8.
Understanding of the uses, advantages and limitations of high stakes
testing as tools for public school accountability
COURSE REQUIREMENTS, PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT, AND
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
A. Requirements
1) Learning Module Assignments.
Each module has a specific independent assignment that should be
completed and submitted on the last scheduled date for the learning
module. A separate handout, also found on Blackboard (Course Content
Folder) details the specific assignments associated with each learning
module. Each assignment is worth 10% of the final grade. Unless there
has been prior approval, a reduction of 5% of the earned grade will be
attached to any assignment that is seven (7) days past the scheduled due
date. No assignment will be accepted thereafter.
2) Case Study and e-Portfolio (50%): The major student project is a
case study of a specific school district’s accountability system as it is
currently operating. Data collection will come primarily from the
internet, although contact with district personnel responsible for
accountability also may be required. The project will culminate with a
written report to be submitted to the Instructor (see course calendar) and
an e-portfolio that will serve as the basis for a student presentation on the
last night of class. Guidelines for the case study will be distributed
under separate cover.
2
3) Active Participation in Classroom Learning (10%): Students are
expected to be active participants in class discussions, particularly involving the
core readings. Part of the class time will involve small group discussions
responsive to the learning module assignments. Students should be prepared for
the discussions, and encouraged to draw on the resources found in Blackboard
to augment the core readings.
Besides the specific requirements, all written work will be evaluated for compliance with the
required style and quality specified in Appendix C. [return]
B. Grading Scale. Evaluation of products and performance assessments will be translated
into the following grade equivalents:
A = 95-100%;
A - = 92-94%;
B+ = 88 -91%; B = 84 – 87%;
B- = 81-85%; C = 75-80%;
D = 70-74%;
F = < 70%
C. Compliance with GMU and GSE Standards and Expectations. Students are to abide by the
standards and expectations expressed in the GMU and GSE statements found in Appendix A.
[return]
REQUIRED BOOKS AND READINGS:
Case Study:
Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu, and John
Q. Easton (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from Chicago.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226078014
Description: 328 pages, 72 line drawings, 11 tables 6 x 9 © 2009
Cloth $70.00
ISBN: 9780226077994 Published February 2010
Paper $28.00
ISBN: 9780226078007 Published February 2010
E-book from $5.00 to $28.00 (about e-books)
Required Learning Module Readings:
Your reading materials are located in Blackboard, logically sequenced in five learning modules
that will guide your study of the many facets of current high-stakes accountability and assessment
systems in our public schools. You may also peruse the reading titles in Appendix D. [return]
Videos
Obama (2009). Remarks by the President on Strengthening America's Education System
James C. Wright Middle School, Madison, Wisconsin. November 4 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obamaannounces-4-billion-investment-education
Obama (2010). The President and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pays a visit to
Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Virginia January 19, 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/19/speeding-race-top
Whitehouse (2010).Nine States and The District of Columbia Win Second Round Race
to the Top Grants. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/Education
3
APPENDIX A
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS
The Graduate School of Education (GSE) expects that all students abide by the
following:
Students are expected to exhibit professional behavior and dispositions. See gse.gmu.edu
for a listing of these dispositions.
Students must follow the guidelines of the University Honor Code. See
http://www.gmu.edu/catalog/apolicies/#TOC_H12 for the full honor code.
Students must agree to abide by the university policy for Responsible Use of Computing.
See http://mail.gmu.edu and click on Responsible Use of Computing at
the bottom of the screen.
Students with disabilities who seek accommodations in a course must be registered with
the GMU Disability Resource Center (DRC) and inform the instructor, in writing, at the
beginning of the semester. See www.gmu.edu/student/drc or call 703-993-2474 to access
the DRC.
4
APPENDIX B
CLASS SCHEDULE: FALL 2010
DATES
SEPT 1-8
SEPT 15-22
SEPT 29 - OCT 27
LECTURE & READING TOPICS
LEARNING MODULE 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A. Orientation to the Course
B. Introduction & Statement of the problem

Brief History of Public School Reform in the United States

The General Problem: The Achievement Gap

Sources of Empirical Evidence of the Problem
o NAEP
o TIMSS
o NCES
C. Theory of Change: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Problem

Brief Description and Process

Stages in Explicating A Theory of Change
D. Module 1 Assignment due September 15
Study Resources: Blackboard Module 1 Readings
LEARNING MODULE 2: THE CONTEXT
A. Nonmarket Outcomes of Education
B. Schools as Complex Organizations
C. Module 2 Assignment due September 29
Study Resources: Blackboard Module 2 Readings
LEARNING MODULE 2A: THE CASE
A. Charting Reform
B. Essential Supports and Importance of School Leadership
C. The Case: Chicago Public School Reform
D. Module 2A Assignment due November 3
Study Resources: Blackboard Module 2A Readings Including:
Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu,
and John Q. Easton (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from
Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
NOV 3-10
LEARNING MODULE 3: THE RESPONSE
A. At the Federal Level
B. At the State Level
C. At the District Level
D. Module 3 Assignment Due November 17
Study Resources: Blackboard Module 3 Readings
NOV 17-DEC 8
LEARNING MODULE 4: THE ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLE APPLIED TO
THE PROBLEM
A. Alignment of Standards and Assessments as an Accountability Criterion

La Marca (2001)
5

Standards for Accountability Systems (Baker et al,
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy5.pdf

Growth Standards and Accountability (Bettebender,
http://www.nciea.org/publications/growthandStandard_DB09.pdf )
 Moving Beyond NCLB
B. Criticisms and Concerns

Nichols and Berliner (2007)

Rebel and Wolf (2009)

Ravitch (2010)
 Darling-Hammond and Adamsom (2010)
C. High Stakes Testing (HST)

Mapping HST to NAEP for Generalizing HST Performance

Technical Methods for HST Alignment

HST Articulation
 Linking Teacher Assessment Data to Student Achievement Outcomes
D. Module 4 Assignment December 8
Study Resources: Blackboard Module 4 Readings
DEC 15
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS & FINAL PROJECTS
6
APPENDIX C
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
All written assignments should be typed, double-spaced, and include a cover page. In
addition, for papers 10 pages or longer, the text of the papers should be preceded by
an abstract of no more than 250 words that provides a synopsis of the content, such as
purpose, procedures, findings and conclusions. In terms of general style, the format
provided in the fourth edition of Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (American Psychological Association, 2002) should be followed.. The
features that should be given close attention are:
Margins
Headings
Citations in the Text
Reference Page
The cover page should include the title of the assignment, the standard course
requirement statement, your name, date, and institutional affiliation information.
You should make a copy of your projects before submitting it to the instructor
7
APPENDIX D
Required Learning Module Reading List
Module 1:
Bowling, T. A. and Cummings, F. D. (2009). Closing the achievement gap. A tiered
approach for supporting students with learning disabilities. Appalachia Regional
Comprehensive Center at Edvantia. Charlestown, W. VA.
Dillon, S. (April 28, 2009). No Child us not closing a racial gap. Page A1 of the New
York edition. The New York Times.
Institute for Education Sciences. (2008). The condition of education 2008. Institute for
Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Institute for Education Sciences. (2000). Understanding achievement gaps. Institute for
Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/understand_gaps.asp
Institute for Education Sciences. (2009). Achievement gap. How Black and White
students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Institute for Education Sciences, US
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Kerachsky, S. (2009). National Assessment of Education Progress Achievement Gaps.
National Center of Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. U.S.
Department of Education. Commissioner’s Remarks.
http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2009/7_14_2009.asp
The Center for Public Education. (2007). A guide to international assessments: At a
glance.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057301/k.1900/D
escription_of_TIMSS_Achievement_Levels.htm
Wikipedia (2008). Achievement gap in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States
Module 2:
New Foundations (2010). The school as an organization.
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/SchoolasOrg.html
Wolfe, B. (1995). Nonmarket outcomes of schooling. Institute for Research on Poverty.
Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Module 2a:
Anthony S. Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. and Easton, J. Q..
(2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Lessons from Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226078014
Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Creating Caring Schools. S60, 40-45.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/creating_sustaining/el200303_bryk.html
Nagaok, J. and Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: the effects of retention.
Charting Reform in Chicago Series. Consortium on Chicago School Research at
the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL
Sebring, P.A. and Bryk, A.S. (1993). Charting reform in Chicago schools: Pluralistic
policy research. New Directions in Program Evaluation, 39, 13-28.
8
Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Q., and Lupperscu, S. (2006). The
essential support for school improvement. Consortium on Chicago School
Research at the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL. http://www.consortiumchi"go.org
Sebring, P.B., Bryk, A.S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago.
Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Chicago,
IL http://www.consortium-chi"go.org
Module 3:
A.The Federal Level
ED.gov (2008). Growth models: Ensuring grade-level proficiency for all students by
2014. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/proficiency.html
ED.gov (2007). K–8 charter schools: Closing the achievement gap.
Stronger accountability. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
http://www2.ed.gov/print/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.html#amistad
ED.gov (2007). Final regulations on modified academic achievement standards
(MAAS). Special Education & Rehabilitative Services. U. S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/modachieve-summary.html
Ed.gov (2004). Secretary Paige issues new policy for calculating participation rates under
No Child Left Behind. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/03/03292004.html
Q and A related to NCLB.
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html
Spellings, M. (2008). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child
Left Behind Act. US Department of Education
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.pdf
U.S. News Report (August 7, 2010). Newly minted Education Secretary Arne Duncan
has big plans for improving the nation's schools. Online edition.
State Level (Virginia)
Virginia Department of Education. (2008). Mathematics Standards of Learning for
Virginia Public Schools – February 2009. Grade Five (Test Blueprint). Virginia
Department of Education,. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government.
Virginia Department of Education. (). Testing & Standards of Learning (SOL). (XX).
Virginia Department of Education,. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/
Virginia Department of Education.(2008). Virginia Assessments cut scores established by
the Board of Education Standards of Learning tests. Virginia Department of
Education. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Government.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Assessment/Solss3.pdf
Virginia Department of Education.(2008). Modified standard diploma grade level tests
cut scores. Virginia Department of Education. Richmond, VA: Virginia State
Government.
District Level (Fairfax, VA)
9
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2008). Testing. Web Page.
http://www.fcps.edu/testing.htm
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2010). Continuous improvement report.
Module 4:
Accountability
Baker, E.L., Linn, R.L., Herman, J.L., and Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational
accountability systems. Policy Brief 5. National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the
Study of Evaluation. www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy5.pdf
Bernstein, Kenneth J. (2010 March 2) Review of The Death and Life of the Great American
School System by Diane Ravitch. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from
http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev892.pdf
Betebenner, D.W. (2009). Growth, standards and accountability. San Francisco: Creative
Commons. DBetebenner@nciea.org
Blake, Jan E. (2010 February 4) Review of Collateral Damage by Sharon L. Nichols & David C.
Berliner. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from
http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev884.pdf
Briggs, K.L. (June 3, 2008).[ Letter to the States’ Chief State School Officer].
Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. United States
Department of Education.
Brown, William L. (2010 June 15) Review of NCLB at the Crossroads by Rebell, Michael A
and Wolff, Jessica R. (Eds.) . Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from
http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev937.pdf
La Marca, Paul M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability
criterion. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(21). Retrieved August
6, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=21
Newton, Lynne. (2010 February 25) Review of Moving Every Child Ahead by Michael A. Rebell
& Jessica R. Wolff. Education Review, 13. Retrieved [Date] from
http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev891.pdf
Hammon, L.D. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment
in achieving the 21 Century standards of learning. Standford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education-Research Brief.
edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/perf_assessment.html
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability:Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations. CSE
Report 601. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH601.pdf
Linn, R.L. (1998). Assessment and Accountability. CSE Technical Report 490. Bolder
CO: University of Colorado at Boulder.
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH490.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. The nation's report card. About NAEP.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
High-stakes Testing
Position Statements:
American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement on highstakes testing in Pre-K – 12 education. http://www.aera.net/?id=378
American Evaluation Association (2002). High Stakes Position Statement: AEA
http://www.eval.org/hst3.htm
10
American Psychological Association. (2001). Appropriate use of high-stakes tests.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Thomas, C.L. (1999). Educational assessment in the United States: In impetus for school
reform. A Paper Presented at the 3rd Annual National Convention
of the Association of Professors of Portuguese, Porto, Portugal
Mapping:
De Mello, V.B. & Blankenship, C. (2009). Mapping State proficiency standards onto
NAEP scales: 2005-2007. Research and Development Report. NCES 2010-458.
Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Department of
Education.
The Nation’s Report Card. (2003). Frequently Asked Questions. Comparison between
NAEP and State mathematics assessment results: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S.
National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2008475.asp
Alignment:
Case, B.J., Jorgensen, M.A. & Zucker, S. (2004). Alignment in educational assessment.
Pearson Assessment Report. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education, Inc.
Articulation:
Lissitz, Robert W. & Huynh Huynh. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments:
issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school
accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(10). Retrieved
August 6, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10 .
Ferrara, S., Johnson, E., & Chen, W. (2004). Vertically moderated standards: logic,
procedures, and likely classification accuracy of judgmentally articulated
performance standards. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Published at Applied
Measurement in Education, 1532-4818, Volume 18, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 35 – 59.
Linking Student Assessment Data with Teacher Performance:
Kpermintz, H. (). Value-added assessment of teacher: The empirical evidence. Bolder
CO: University of Colorado at Boulder http://epicpolicy.org/files/Chapter11Kupermintz-Final.pdf
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S.R. & Krone, E. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluation. Findings
from the first year of the Excellence in Teaching Project in Chicago Public
Schools. Chicago: consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of
Chicago Urban Education Institute.
Recommended
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). High-stakes tests .
http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=6356
Furhman, S. H., and Elmore, R. F. (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for
education. New York: Teachers College Press. (Required Textbook)
Siskin, L.S. (2003). Accountability Inside Schools AISR_VUE_Siskin_article.htm
(Blackboard: Documents, Scheduled Readings & Cited References)
11
American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Revised 1999. Developed jointly by the American
Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the
National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Thomas, R. M. (2005). High-stakes testing. Coping with collateral damage. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Required Textbook)
12