|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-13 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
School Segregation; Racial Segregation; State Government; School Desegregation; Metropolitan Areas; Race; Pattern Recognition; School Districts; Educational Trends; Sustainability; Student Diversity; Racial Differences
Abstract:
Virginia has a long and complicated history with school desegregation efforts. It is a state that can lay claim both to advancing the goals of "Brown v. Board of Education" and to impeding them. Over the years, this history has helped shape contemporary patterns of school segregation across Virginia and in her major metropolitan areas. This report examines school segregation trends in the state between 1989 and 2010. Drawing on federal data from the National Center for Education Statistics, it explores patterns at the state, metropolitan and school district level. More than fifty years after "Brown v. Board of Education," significant and rising shares of the Virginia's black students enroll in segregated schools that are intensely isolated by race and poverty. Broadly, findings also indicate that enrollments in the state, its major metros and districts have become rapidly more diverse, particularly in the past decade. Rising levels of racial diversity bring many opportunities for integration, but a key challenge will be to ensure that metros and districts that become diverse remain diverse--and do not resegregate. Even as levels of segregation between school districts in some of Virginia's major metros decline, swift racial transition is occurring within districts. Appended are: (1) State, Metropolitan and District Tables; and (2) Data and Methodology. (Contains 51 tables, 44 figures and 66 footnotes.) [This paper was written with Jennifer Ayscue, John Kuscera, and Gary Orfield.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (4591K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
School Desegregation; School Segregation; Racial Segregation; Magnet Schools; Counties; Educational History; Busing; Hispanic American Students; African American Students; White Students; Public Schools; Enrollment; Low Income Groups; Racial Composition; Urban Schools; State Legislation; Federal Legislation; Equal Education
Abstract:
Maryland, as one of 17 states that had de jure segregation, has an intense history of school segregation. Following the 1954 Brown decision, school districts across the state employed various methods to desegregate their schools, including mandatory busing in Prince George's County, magnet schools in Montgomery County, and a freedom of choice plan in Baltimore. Although the districts made some progress in desegregating their schools, after plans that had the explicit goal of decreasing segregation ended, many of the schools in Maryland again reached high levels of segregation. This report investigates trends in school segregation in Maryland over the last two decades by examining concentration, exposure, and evenness measures by both race and class. After exploring the overall enrollment patterns and segregation trends at the state level, this report turns to the Baltimore-Washington CMSA to analyze similar measures of segregation. Given the trends presented in this report, it is likely that segregation will continue to intensify if nothing is done to address it. Having already reached high levels of segregation for the state's students of color, it is necessary that Maryland now take steps to reverse these trends by being proactive in addressing the segregated nature of its public schools. Appended are: (1) Additional Data Tables; and (2) Data Sources and Methodology. (Contains 32 tables, 20 figures and 83 footnotes.) [Foreword by Gary Orfield. This paper was written with Greg Flaxman, John Kucsera, and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (2474K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-07-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Racial Segregation; School Segregation; Racial Composition; Academic Achievement; Profiles; Institutional Characteristics; Poverty; Geographic Distribution; Geographic Location; School Effectiveness; Disadvantaged; Achievement Rating; Minority Group Students; Scores; Comparative Analysis; Comparative Testing; Schematic Studies; Educational Sociology; Equal Education; Social Justice; Educational Policy; Politics of Education
Abstract:
Persistent school segregation means not only that children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds attend different schools but also that their schools are unequal in performance. This study documents the extent of disparities nationally in school performance between schools attended by whites and Asians compared with those attended by blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. It further examines the geography of school inequality in two ways. First, it analyzes the segregation of students between different types of school profiles based on racial composition, poverty, and metropolitan location. Second, it estimates the independent effects of these and other school and school district characteristics on school performance, identifying which aspects of school segregation are the most important sources of disadvantage. A focus on schools at the bottom of the distribution, as in No Schools Left Behind, would not ameliorate wide disparities between groups that are found across the whole spectrum of school performance. (Contains 2 notes, 5 tables, and 2 figures.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Mathematics Achievement; Science Achievement; Elementary Schools; Middle Schools; Problem Solving; Active Learning; Teaching Methods; Mathematics Teachers; Science Teachers; Teacher Improvement; Reading Achievement; Knowledge Base for Teaching; Learner Engagement; Achievement Tests; Scores; Low Income Groups; Minority Group Students; White Students; Racial Differences; Gender Differences; Statistical Analysis; Teacher Surveys; Attrition (Research Studies)
Abstract:
This report presents the results of an experiment conducted in Alabama beginning in the 2006/07 school year, to determine the effectiveness of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), which aims to improve mathematics and science achievement in the state's K-12 schools. This study is the first randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of AMSTI in improving mathematics problem solving and science achievement in upper-elementary and middle schools. AMSTI is an initiative specific to Alabama and was developed and supported through state resources. An important finding is the positive and statistically significant effect of AMSTI on mathematics achievement as measured by the SAT 10 mathematics problem solving assessment administered by the state to students in grades 4-8. After one year in the program, student mathematics scores were higher than those of a control group that did not receive AMSTI by 0.05 standard deviation, equivalent to 2 percentile points. Nine of the 10 sensitivity analyses yielded effect estimates that were statistically significant at the 0.025 level, consistent with the main finding. The estimated effect of AMSTI on science achievement measured after one year was not statistically significant. Based on the SAT 10 science test administered by the state to students in grades 5 and 7, no difference between AMSTI and control schools could be discerned after one year. Changes in classroom instructional strategies, especially an emphasis on more active-learning strategies, are important to the AMSTI theory of action. Therefore, a secondary investigation of classroom practices was conducted, based on data from survey responses from teachers. For both mathematics and science, statistically significant differences were found between AMSTI and control teachers in the average reported time spent using the strategies. The effect of AMSTI on these instructional strategies was 0.47 standard deviation in mathematics and 0.32 standard deviation in science. Two years of AMSTI appeared to have a positive and statistically significant effect on achievement in mathematics problem solving, compared to no AMSTI. Two years of AMSTI appeared to have a positive and statistically significant effect on achievement in science. AMSTI appeared to have a positive and statistically significant effect on reading achievement as measured by the SAT 10 test of reading administered by the state to students in grades 4-8. AMSTI did not appear to have a statistically significant effect on teacher-reported content knowledge in mathematics or science after one year. AMSTI did not appear to have statistically significant differential effects on student achievement in mathematics problem solving or science based on racial/ethnic minority status, enrollment in the free or reduced-price lunch program, gender, or pretest level. Appended are: (1) Explanation of primary and secondary confirmatory outcome measures; (2) Explanation of exploratory research questions; (3) Selection and random assignment of schools; (4) Statistical power analysis; (5) Data collection procedures and timeline; (6) Description of program implementation data collected but not used in report; (7) Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) teacher survey #3; (8) Data cleaning and data file construction; (9) Attrition through study stages for samples used in the confirmatory analysis; (10) Description of degree rank; (11) Equivalence of Year 1 baseline and analyzed samples for confirmatory student-level and classroom practice outcomes; (12) Internal consistency and validity of active learning measures; (13) Number of students and teachers in schools in analytic samples used to analyze Year 1 confirmatory questions; (14) Attrition through study stages for samples used in Year 1 exploratory analysis; (15) Tests of equivalence for baseline and analytic samples for Year 1 exploratory outcomes; (16) Statistical power analyses for moderator analyses; (17) Derivation and motivation of the Bell-Bradley estimator when measuring estimated two-year effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI); (18) Attrition through study stages for samples contributing to estimation of two-year effects; (19) Examination of equivalence in baseline and analytic samples used in the estimation of two-year effects; (20) Estimation model for two-year effects of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI); (21) Topics and instructional methods used at the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) summer institute; (22) Parameter estimates on probability scale for odds-ratio tests of differences between Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) and control conditions in Year 1 (associated with summer professional development and in-school support outcomes); (23) Descriptive statistics for variables that change to a binary scale used in the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) and control conditions in Year 1; (24) Comparison of assumed parameter values and observed sample statistics for statistical power analysis after one year; (25) Parameter estimates for Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Edition (SAT 10) mathematics problem solving after one year; (26) Parameter estimates for Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Edition (SAT 10) science after one year; (27) Parameter estimates for active learning in mathematics after one year; (28) Parameter estimates for active learning in science after one year; (29) Sensitivity analyses of effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Edition (SAT 10) mathematics problem solving achievement after one year; (30) Sensitivity analyses of effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Edition (SAT 10) science achievement after one year; (31) Sensitivity analyses of effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on active learning instructional strategies in mathematics classrooms after one year; (32) Sensitivity analyses of effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on active learning instructional strategies in science classrooms after one year; (33) Tests for violations of factors associated with assumption of equal first year effects on students in Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) and control schools; (34) Post hoc adjustment to standard error for estimate of two-year effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on mathematics achievement after two years; (35) Parameter estimates for effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) after two years; (36) Parameter estimates for effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on student reading achievement after one year; (37) Parameter estimates for teacher content and student engagement after one year; (38) Estimates of effects for terms involving the indicator of treatment status in the analysis of the moderating effect of the three-level pretest variable; (39) Parameter estimates for the analysis of the moderating effect of racial/ethnic minority status on the impact of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on reading after one year; (40) Parameter estimates for analysis of average effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on reading by racial/ethnic minority students after one year; and (41) Parameter estimates for effect of the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) on reading for White students after one year. (Contains 26 figures, 136 tables, 1 box and 130 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (2540K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-05-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
High Schools; Rural Schools; Public Schools; Middle Schools; Inclusion; Elementary Schools; Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Improvement; Federal Programs; Disabilities; Educational Indicators; Urban Schools; Academic Achievement; Accountability; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Enrollment; Charter Schools; Special Education
Abstract:
Formerly excluded from measures of educational performance, students with disabilities (SWDs) are now explicitly recognized in federal and state accountability systems. At the national level, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laid the foundation for accountability of SWDs by requiring states to include these students in state and district assessments and to report their participation and performance. This requirement was further reinforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized in 2001, which established SWDs as an explicit student subgroup for the purpose of determining whether schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP). This interim study report presents an overview of the relevant policy context and presents findings for the following research questions: (1) What percentage of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup between the 2005-06 and 2008-09 school years?; (2) What percentage of different types of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup?; (3) What percentage of schools moved in and out of accountability for the performance of the SWD subgroup?; (4) What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance of the SWD subgroup?; and (5) What percentage of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance were identified for school improvement? The study is based on data from ED"Facts", a U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiative to collect and place K-12 performance data at the center of policy, management, and budget decisions. The analyses that appear in this interim report are limited to the 2005-06 to 2008-09 school years because 2005-06 is the first year in which ED"Facts" collected information on the number of tested SWDs and 2008-09 was the latest year for which ED"Facts" data were available at the time the analyses were conducted. The final study report will extend the interim report analyses with an additional year (2009-10) of ED"Facts" data and also will examine school practices that may relate to the achievement outcomes of SWDs, drawing on data from a school survey administered in 2011. In addition, the final report will explore the relationships between school SWD-accountability status and school practices and SWD proficiency. Key findings for each of the research questions addressed in this report are summarized as follows: (1) "What percentage of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup between the 2005-06 and 2008-09 school years?" (a) Across the 40 states with relevant data for the 2008-09 school year, more than a third (35 percent) of public schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup, representing 58 percent of tested SWDs in those states. In those same 40 states, 62 percent of middle schools were accountable for SWD performance, while 31 percent of elementary schools and 23 percent of high schools were accountable; (b) In the 20 states that had relevant data for all 4 years, there was a steady increase in the percentage of SWD-accountable schools, from 25 percent in the 2005-06 school year to more than a third (34 percent) in the 2008-09 school year; (2) "What percentage of different types of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup?" (a) In the 40 states with relevant data, 12 percent of regular charters were accountable for SWD subgroup performance in the 2008-09 school year, compared with over one-third (37 percent) of traditional regular schools, 40 percent of traditional special education schools, and 40 percent of special education charters; (b) In the 40 states with relevant data, the percentage of tested SWDs represented in SWD-accountable schools in the 2008-09 school year ranged from 33 percent for vocational/alternative schools to 82 percent for special education charters; (3) "What percentage of schools moved in and out of accountability for the performance of the SWD subgroup?" (a) In the 32 states with relevant data, the majority (55 percent) of the public schools were not accountable for the SWD subgroup in any of the 4 years examined, in comparison with 18 percent of the schools that were consistently accountable in each of the 4 years; (b) There was year-to-year fluctuation in schools' accountability for the SWD subgroup among the remaining schools, which were accountable for the SWD subgroup in some years but not all 4 years. Among the schools accountable for the SWD subgroup in the 2005-06 school year in the 32 states with relevant data, 80 percent, 78 percent, and 76 percent also were accountable in the following 3 school years, respectively; (4) "What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance of the SWD subgroup?" (a) Nine percent of all public schools in 37 states missed AYP in the 2008-09 school year because of SWD subgroup performance and other reason(s), and 5 percent missed it solely because of SWD subgroup performance. Together these schools represented more than a quarter (28 percent) of tested SWDs in all public schools in these states; (b) Among schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance in these 37 states, 26 percent missed AYP because of SWD performance and other reason(s), and 14 percent missed AYP solely because of SWD performance in the 2008-09 school year. Combined, these schools enrolled 47 percent of tested SWDs attending SWD-accountable schools in these states; (c) In the 16 states that had relevant data over the 4 years analyzed, 40 percent of SWD-accountable schools missed AYP either partially or solely due to SWD performance in the 2005-06 school year and 35 percent did so in 2008-09; (5) "What percentage of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance were identified for school improvement?" (a) Among schools that were consistently accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup across 27 states during the 4 years, the majority (56 percent) were never identified for school improvement over this time period. By comparison, among schools that were consistently not accountable for SWD subgroup performance in these states, three-quarters (76 percent) were never identified for improvement; (b) Identification for school improvement was mostly stable over time. Of the consistently SWD-accountable schools in 27 states, 80 percent of the schools identified for improvement as well as schools not identified for improvement in the 2006-07 school year retained the same identification status through 2009-10. Appended are: (1) Technical Working Group Members; (2) Minimum subgroup size for AYP determination, by state, 2007-08 school year; (3) Number and percentage of public schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance and the percentage of tested SWDs in SWD-accountable schools in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (4) Number and percentage of public elementary schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance and the percentage of tested SWDs in SWD-accountable elementary schools in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (5) Number and percentage of public middle schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance and the percentage of tested SWDs in SWD-accountable middle schools in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (6) Number and percentage of public high schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance and the percentage of tested SWDs in SWD-accountable high schools in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (7) Average enrollment for schools accountable and not accountable for SWD subgroup performance, in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (8) Percentage of urban and rural schools, percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced-priced lunch, and percentage of minority students, for schools accountable and not accountable for SWD subgroup performance, in 40 states with relevant data, 2008-09 school year; (9) Percentage of public schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance, in 20 states with relevant data, 2005-06 to 2008-09 school years; (10) Tested SWDs in public schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance as a percentage of tested SWDs in all public schools, in 20 states with relevant data, 2005-06 to 2008-09 school years; (11) Percentage of public schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance, in 32 states with relevant data, by the number of years in which they were accountable between the 2005-06 and 2008-09 school years; (12) Percentage of public schools consistently accountable for SWD subgroup performance in all 4 years (2005-06 to 2008-09 school years), in 27 states with relevant data, by the year identified for school improvement; and (13) Percentage of public schools consistently not accountable for SWD subgroup performance in all 4 years (2005-06 to 2008-09 school years), in 27 states with relevant data, by the year identified for school improvement. (Contains 28 exhibits and 42 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (854K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2011-10-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
High School Students; Federal Legislation; Language Arts; American Indians; Achievement Gains; Mathematics Tests; Scores; English; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Educational Testing; Racial Differences; Achievement Tests; High Stakes Tests; Reading Tests; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; Minority Group Students; White Students; Low Income Groups; Gender Differences; Comparative Analysis; Accountability; Educational Policy; Advanced Students; Foreign Countries; Comparative Education; Exit Examinations; State Programs
Abstract:
This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, examines trends in the achievement of high school students on the state reading/English language arts (ELA) and mathematics tests used for accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In most states, these tests are first administered in grade 10 or 11, although some states use end-of-course exams not tied to a particular high school grade. The authors looked at trends from 2002 (or a more recent year in several states) through 2009 for high school students overall and for African American, Asian American, Latino, Native American, white, low-income, male, and female students. Trends in average (mean) test scores were analyzed, along with trends in percentages of students scoring at or above the proficient and advanced levels of achievement on state tests. The authors also compared trends at the high school level with those at grades 4 and 8. Key findings from this study include the following: (1) Although high school students made gains in average test scores and proficiency in most of the states analyzed, fewer states showed gains at high school than at grades 4 and 8; (2) Many states show a troubling lack of progress among high school students at the advanced achievement level; (3) Achievement gains were smaller, on average, for high school students than for 4th and 8th graders; (4) States with gains for major subgroups of high school students far outnumbered states with declines, according to percentages proficient and average test scores. But at the advanced achievement level, high school trends for subgroups were less positive, especially in English language arts; and (5) Gaps between subgroups of high school students generally narrowed at the proficient level but often widened at the advanced level. High school grades tested for NCLB accountability in 2008-09 for states included in this study are appended. (Contains 8 tables.) [This paper was written with the assistance from Victor Chudowsky and Naomi Chudowsky. For related reports, see "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 1: Rising Scores on State Tests and NAEP" (ED513962); "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps" (ED513914); "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 3: Student Achievement at 8th Grade" (ED518144); and "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?" (ED522866).]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1059K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Opportunities; School Segregation; Racial Segregation; Civil Rights; Public Schools; Demography; White Students; Economically Disadvantaged; Hispanic American Students; Poverty; Social Change; Student Diversity; Public Policy; Statistical Data; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis
Abstract:
The U.S. Western region and its public schools are in the midst of its largest racial and economic transformation, as the area witnesses a shrinking white majority, a surging Latino minority, and a growing class of poor. These groups, along with blacks and Asian, more often than not attend very different and segregated schools both in educational opportunity and student body diversity. With its growing diversity potentially exemplifying our nation's future demography, the West is an ideal region to determine how demographic transformation and segregation of our public schools can affect the rest of the nation if social and civil rights policy continues in their stagnant state. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, as the proportion of white students drops and the percentage of Latinos rises, whites in the Western region are attending more diverse schools than whites across other regions. Yet, the interracial contact between white and Latino students is declining more than ever before, as more and more Latinos attend schools with 10% or fewer white classmates. To exacerbate this growing segregation, and without taking into account the full effect of the recent recession, two out of three students in a typical Latino student's school are poor, often a clear indicator of an impoverished setting that lacks educational opportunities and morale often found in low poverty schools. A similar story emerges for black students in the West, as many attend impoverished schools with mostly Latino peers. In this report, the authors present an in-depth exploration of these Western trends that are merely summarized in the corresponding larger report, "E Pluribus... Separated." Major findings in the West are highlighted. Data Sources and Methodology are appended. (Contains 15 tables and 19 footnotes.) [For the main report, ""E Pluribus"... Separation: Deepening Double Segregation for More Students," see ED535442. For related report, "Southern Slippage: Growing School Segregation in the Most Desegregated Region of the Country," see ED535611.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (2201K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Student Evaluation; State Standards; Exit Examinations; High Schools; Graduation Requirements; State Surveys; Trend Analysis; Educational Assessment; Educational Indicators; Educational Policy; State Regulation; Evaluation Methods; Enrollment Trends; Academic Standards; High School Graduates; Scores; Disabilities; Alignment (Education); Mathematics Tests; Reading Tests; Career Readiness; College Readiness; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Writing Tests; Curriculum Design; Graduation; Academic Achievement; Accountability; Language Tests; High School Students; Minority Group Students; Low Income Groups
Abstract:
Since 2002, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University, a national advocate for public education and improving public schools, has been studying state high school exit examinations--tests students must pass to receive a high school diploma. This year marks the 11th year CEP has reported on exit exams in order to help policymakers reach informed decisions about assessment policies in their states. Information from this year's report comes from several sources: a formal verification process through which department of education officials in states with exit exams confirmed and updated information about their exit exam policies from CEP's previous reports on this topic; a special survey of states both with and without exit exams about the future of these policies; state Web sites; media reports; and past CEP publications. Chapter 1 of this report focuses on the present status of state high school exit exam policies, including which states have exit exams, specific characteristics of these exams, how many students are impacted, and changes that have occurred in these policies over the past year. Chapter 2 discusses the future of these policies, such as the shift to assess college and career readiness and the impact of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and common assessments. Chapter 3 reviews states' past 11 years of experience in implementing exit exams to draw out lessons that may be valuable to state leaders and policymakers as they decide about future policy changes and their implementation. Impact of Common Core State Standards in states with high school exit exams is appended. (Contains 6 figures, 3 tables, 2 boxes, and 2 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (647K)
|
|
