| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X031006003 Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001University of Colorado, Boulder School of Education, Campus Box 249, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; Robert.Linn{at}colorado.edu. He is also Co-Director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). His research interests include educational measurement, and the design and impact of educational accountability systems.
University of California, Los Angeles and Co-Director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), GSE & IS Building, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1522; baker{at}gseis.ucla.edu. Her research interests include assessment policy and technology-based systems for assessment and learning.
University of Colorado at Boulder, School of Education, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; damian.betebenner{at}colorado.edu. His research interests include the use of large-scale data sets to investigate the efficacy of educational policy initiatives involving accountability and school choice The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 substantially increases the testing requirements for states and sets demanding accountability standards for schools, districts, and states with measurable adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives for all students and subgroups of students defined by socioeconomic background, race–ethnicity, English language proficiency, and disability. However, states’ content standards, the rigor of their tests, and the stringency of their performance standards vary greatly. Consequently, the percentage of students who score at the proficient level or higher on the state assessments varies radically from state to state. Some states have farther to go than others to meet the mandated target of 100% proficient within 12 years. These differences are illustrated and the implications for achieving AYP targets are discussed. Also addressed are possible uses of results from the biennial state-level administrations of the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a means of leveling the playing field. Factors contributing to the volatility of gains in achievement from year to year for individual schools are discussed.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
