首页> 外文OA文献 >Accountability as testing: Are there lessons about assessment and outcomes to be learnt from No Child Left Behind?
【2h】

Accountability as testing: Are there lessons about assessment and outcomes to be learnt from No Child Left Behind?

机译:问责制作为测试:是否有任何教训可以从“不让任何一个孩子掉队”中学到评估和结果?

摘要

The fact that debate has continued over literacy teaching for the past three years since the 2005 release of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading (National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading, 2005), and that recent rearticulations of the Report’s findings by its lead author (See for example Milburn, 2008) continue to take headline space, reminds us that literacy education remains a contentious policy and pedagogic issue for communities, schools, systems, teachers and students – and for politicians. During the past three to four year period we’ve all watched the latest literacy crisis played out in the pages of our newspapers and television current affairs shows. This crisis has predictably led to policy and curriculum initiatives offering simplistic solutions to the latest perceived problems. Under the last Conservative Federal Government, these Australian media and policy responses paralleled the debates in the United States over the No Child Left Behind Act (United States of America, 2001). So in a context where accountability is being narrowly framed as testing, and literacy likewise framed as basic decoding skills, are there lessons to be learnt for Australian teachers and policy makers in the No Child Left Behind legislation? Research dispelling the success of NCLB has been available since its inception, but more recently the official reports have been calling the policy decisions implemented as part of this legislation into question, and political support for both NCLB and the Reading First program is beginning to waver. In this short paper we first lay out a brief introduction to the NCLB legislation and its policy effects. We document the official results and the critiques. We then suggest some lessons that Australian policy-makers and educators must consider as the decision about how best to promote a high quality / high equity system for all Australian school children is made in the new political context. We aim to offer a scientific and bibliographical resource for teachers who wish to engage with the debate.
机译:自2005年发布《全国阅读教学研究》(2005年全国阅读教学研究)以来,在过去三年中,关于读写教学的争论一直在继续,最近报告对报告的调查结果也进行了重新表述作者(例如,Milburn,2008年)继续占据头条位置,提醒我们扫盲教育仍然是社区,学校,系统,教师和学生以及政客的有争议的政策和教育问题。在过去的三到四年中,我们所有人都在报纸和电视时事节目的页面上观看了最新的识字危机。可以预见的是,这场危机导致政策和课程计划为最新的已知问题提供了简单的解决方案。在上届保守联邦政府的领导下,这些澳大利亚媒体和政策的回应与美国关于“不让任何孩子落后”法案(美国,2001年)的辩论平行。因此,在将问责制狭义地定义为测试,将读写能力同样定性为基本解码技能的情况下,澳大利亚的老师和政策制定者是否应从“不让任何孩子落后”的立法中吸取教训?自成立以来,就可以进行消除NCLB成功的研究,但是最近官方报告对作为该立法一部分而实施的政策决定提出了质疑,并且对NCLB和Reading First计划的政治支持也开始动摇。在本文中,我们首先简要介绍了NCLB立法及其政策效果。我们记录官方结果和评论。然后,我们提出一些教训,澳大利亚决策者和教育者必须考虑这些教训,因为在新的政治背景下做出了关于如何最好地为所有澳大利亚学童促进高质量/高平等制度的决定。我们旨在为希望参与辩论的教师提供科学和书目资源。

著录项

  • 作者

    Luke Allan; Woods Annette F.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2008
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号