1. Evidence of Effectiveness for NCLB Policies Presented by the “Bush” Team: Jennifer Brodar, Stephanie Fakharzadeh, Sol Bee Jung, Kerry O'Grady, and Chris Wrightson

2. Key Policy Idea 1: Assessments  NAEP (1960’s)  National Assessment Governing Board  1992: Created “achievement levels”  Basic, Proficient, Advanced  Previously only comparative  Statewide Testing  Implemented from 1992-1997  Develop own vs. commercial assessment  “ Balance” of open response and multiple choice  Considerations of reliability, cost & time  Validity (Researchers)  Construct validity  Bias across populations  Teaching to the test  Accountability (Politicians)  Easier to tie numbers to funding

3. Key Policy Idea 2: Standards  14 States had adopted standards (2000)  Diane Ravitch  National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide.(1995)  Schmoker & Marzano  “Bloated” content standards need trimming  Only effective when fully taught & assessed  Rotherham’s White Paper  Wanted National Standards  29/44 TIMSS Countries had them  Textbook coverage vs. performance  Little evidence on “effectiveness of standards”  Little clarity on “standards for standards”  1993 CPRE Policy Brief

4. Key Policy Idea 3: Accountability  Bush’s “Texas Miracle”  Implemented high-stakes testing  Houston  Dropouts fell  (Later determined “creative classifying”)  Test scores rose  (Later determined to be Pearson test-taking tests)  Kentucky Example  High-stakes testing in two year cycles  34% of Schools met goal  60% of general public supported idea  60% of principals and 75% of teachers opposed idea

5.  Evidence from business world  “free market”  “vote with your feet”  Racial/economic segregation  Private schools perform better than public schools  Hard to separate “value-added” from selection criteria  Hoxby- 1998  More school districts in area lead to higher achievement & lower per pupil spending  Concerns of confounding variables/statistical assumptions  Parents choose based on location, not quality  Alum Rock, CA  Minnesota- less than 2% took advantage of statewide choice Key Policy Idea 3A: Choice

6. Key Policy Idea 3B: Funding  Rotherham’s White Paper  $118 Billion on Title I, achievement gap stayed static  Some improvement for lowest-income students  Needed better support for LEP  44% drop out rate for Hispanic students born outside US  15% of schools that needed LEP funding in 1998 got it  Need to shift from program-based funding to evidence-based  $1.2 billion class-size reduction under Clinton  Teacher quality proven to be more impactful  Impoverished areas: $4.63 per pupil federal funding & $0.62 state  Tying funding to evidence would push research

7. References “Developing Content Standards: Creating a Process for Change. CPRE Policy Brief.,” October 1993. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED362981. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED362981 Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The New Accountability. CPRE Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED429336 Goldhaber, Dan D. “School Choice: An Examination of the Empirical Evidence on Achievement, Parental Decision Making, and Equity.” Educational Researcher 28, no. 9 (December 1, 1999): 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X028009016. Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions. Leung, R. (2013, February 18). Bush’s “Texas Miracle” debunked, Lone Star State sparks anti-testing revolution. Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bushs-texas-miracle-debunked-lone-star-st McDonnell, L, and C Choisser. Testing and Teaching: Local Implementation of New State Assessments. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 1997. Mullis, Ina V. S., and And Others. NAEP 1992--Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States: Data from the National and Trial State Assessments. U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402- 9328., 1993. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED369067. Nave, Bill, Edward Miech, and Frederick Mosteller. “A Lapse in Standards - Linking Standards-Based Reform with Student Achievement.” Phi Delta Kappan 82, no. 2 (October 1, 2000): 128. Rotherham, A., & Insitute, P. P. (1999). Toward performance-based federal education funding. Policy Report. Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership, 56, 17-21. Smith, Mary Lee, and Patricia Fey. “Validity and Accountability in High-Stakes Testing.” Journal of Teacher Education 51, no. 5 (November 1, 2000): 334–44. doi:10.1177/0022487100051005002. Stanford, J. (2013, February 18). The “Texas Miracle.” Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-texas- miracle/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-texas- miracle/ Stanford University. (2000). History of standards based reform. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/archives/syllabi/CalTex_SBR/historysbr.html

8. Thank you!