Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos
.
En 2012 se cumplieron 10 años de la implementación de No Child Left Behind (NCLB) o “Ningún niño atrás”  en su traducción al español. NCLB es la ley que define la política educativa para los niños que asisten a  escuelas públicas en los Estados Unidos. Basada en la teoría económica, la ley definió precisos criterios  cuantitativos para evaluar avances o retrocesos en el sistema. En este artículo resumimos los principales  hallazgos presentados en la literatura académica norteamericana con respecto a las consecuencias  esperadas y no esperadas de la ley. La experiencia norteamericana muestra que vincular los resultados de  pruebas estandarizadas a penalidades para... Ver más
0123-4471
2462-9782
14
2011-01-01
47
63
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes - 2012
id |
oai:revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co:article-871 |
---|---|
record_format |
ojs |
spelling |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos ningún niño atrás http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Text AUDREY Amrein-Beardsley (2009) “The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences of ‘Staying the Course’ on the United States’ No Child Left Behind Policy,”International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership. Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 KIM, J. y SUNDERMAN, G.L. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College. Vol. 109, No. 5. En 2012 se cumplieron 10 años de la implementación de No Child Left Behind (NCLB) o “Ningún niño atrás”  en su traducción al español. NCLB es la ley que define la política educativa para los niños que asisten a  escuelas públicas en los Estados Unidos. Basada en la teoría económica, la ley definió precisos criterios  cuantitativos para evaluar avances o retrocesos en el sistema. En este artículo resumimos los principales  hallazgos presentados en la literatura académica norteamericana con respecto a las consecuencias  esperadas y no esperadas de la ley. La experiencia norteamericana muestra que vincular los resultados de  pruebas estandarizadas a penalidades para profesores y escuelas es una estrategia insuficiente para motivar cambios positivos en el sistema educativo. Martínez, Lina Prada, Sergio Educación consecuencias inesperadas http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 evaluación de políticas públicas 14 1 Núm. 1 , Año 2012 : Enero - Junio Publication Español application/pdf https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871 Universidad de Caldas Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Artículo de revista info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion JEYNES, W. (2012) A Meta-Analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education No. 87. BORMAN, K., y COTNER, B. (2000). No Child Left Behind: The Federal Government Gets Serious About Accountability. The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education. In Richard Arum y Irenee R. Beattie (Eds.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. BIFULCO, R. y LADD, H. (2006). The impacts of Charter Schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. American Education Finance Association. Vol. 1. ELMORE, Richard. (2002) Unwarranted Intrusion. Education Next. Vol. 2 no. 1. http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 Gap in Education.Standards-Based Reform and the Poverty Gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind. In Adam Gamoran (Ed). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. GONZALES, P., Williams, T., JOCELYN, L., ROEY, S., KASTBERG, D., y BRENWALD, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. (Disponible en: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf). HAMILTON, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of research in education. Vol 27. HEINRICH, C. J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 37. HENIG, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates : the case of Charter Schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. JACOB, B. y LEVITT, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalance and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. GAMORAN, A. (2007). Introduction: Can Standards-Based Reform Help Reduced the Poverty. JENKS y PHILLIPS (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. The black-white test score gap. In Jenks and Phillips (Eds). Washington, DC.: Brooking Institute Press. KIM, J., y SUNDERMAN, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child LeftBehind Act: Implications for Educational Equity. Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 8. Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as a measure of educators’ productivity. Jurnal of Human Resources, No. 37. Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes - 2012 MIRON, G. y HORN, J. (2003). Evaluation of Connecticut Charter Schools and the Charter School Initiative. Evaluation center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI NELSON, J., STUART P., y MCCARTHY, M. (2007). Standards-based reform: Real change or political smoke screen. Critical issues in education: Dialogs and Dialectics. 6th Edition. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies. NI, Y. y RORRER. A. (2012) Twice Considered: Charter Schools and Student Achievement in Utah. Economics of Education Review. RAVITCH, D. (2009). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, New York: Basic Books. Sass, T. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. American education finance association. Vol. 1 SCHMITT y WHITSETT, 2008. Using evaluation data to strike a balance between stakeholders and accountability systems. New Directions for Evaluation. Special Issue: Consequences of No Child Left Behind for Educational Evaluation. No. 117. info:eu-repo/semantics/article Journal article Consequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States case - no child left behind public policy evaluation Education 2012 marked the 10th anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy implementation. NCLB is the United States of America law that defines the educational policy for children attending public schools. Grounded on economic theory, this law established clear quantitative criteria in order to assess achievement and set-backs in the public educational system. This article summarizes main findings gathered from a literature review on  intended and unintended consequences of the law. The US experience shows that tying standardized test  scores to penalties for teachers and schools is an insufficient strategy to motivate positive change in the  educational system. unexpected consequences 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z 0123-4471 https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/download/871/794 2462-9782 https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871 63 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z 47 2011-01-01 |
institution |
UNIVERSIDAD DE CALDAS |
thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADDECALDAS/logo.png |
country_str |
Colombia |
collection |
Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes |
title |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos |
spellingShingle |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos Martínez, Lina Prada, Sergio ningún niño atrás Educación consecuencias inesperadas evaluación de políticas públicas no child left behind public policy evaluation Education unexpected consequences |
title_short |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos |
title_full |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos |
title_fullStr |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos |
title_full_unstemmed |
Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos |
title_sort |
consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: el caso de los estados unidos |
title_eng |
Consequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States case |
description |
En 2012 se cumplieron 10 años de la implementación de No Child Left Behind (NCLB) o “Ningún niño atrás”  en su traducción al español. NCLB es la ley que define la política educativa para los niños que asisten a  escuelas públicas en los Estados Unidos. Basada en la teoría económica, la ley definió precisos criterios  cuantitativos para evaluar avances o retrocesos en el sistema. En este artículo resumimos los principales  hallazgos presentados en la literatura académica norteamericana con respecto a las consecuencias  esperadas y no esperadas de la ley. La experiencia norteamericana muestra que vincular los resultados de  pruebas estandarizadas a penalidades para profesores y escuelas es una estrategia insuficiente para motivar cambios positivos en el sistema educativo.
|
description_eng |
2012 marked the 10th anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy implementation. NCLB is the United States of America law that defines the educational policy for children attending public schools. Grounded on economic theory, this law established clear quantitative criteria in order to assess achievement and set-backs in the public educational system. This article summarizes main findings gathered from a literature review on  intended and unintended consequences of the law. The US experience shows that tying standardized test  scores to penalties for teachers and schools is an insufficient strategy to motivate positive change in the  educational system.
|
author |
Martínez, Lina Prada, Sergio |
author_facet |
Martínez, Lina Prada, Sergio |
topicspa_str_mv |
ningún niño atrás Educación consecuencias inesperadas evaluación de políticas públicas |
topic |
ningún niño atrás Educación consecuencias inesperadas evaluación de políticas públicas no child left behind public policy evaluation Education unexpected consequences |
topic_facet |
ningún niño atrás Educación consecuencias inesperadas evaluación de políticas públicas no child left behind public policy evaluation Education unexpected consequences |
citationvolume |
14 |
citationissue |
1 |
citationedition |
Núm. 1 , Año 2012 : Enero - Junio |
publisher |
Universidad de Caldas |
ispartofjournal |
Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes |
source |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871 |
language |
Español |
format |
Article |
rights |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes - 2012 |
references |
AUDREY Amrein-Beardsley (2009) “The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences of ‘Staying the Course’ on the United States’ No Child Left Behind Policy,”International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership. KIM, J. y SUNDERMAN, G.L. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College. Vol. 109, No. 5. JEYNES, W. (2012) A Meta-Analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education No. 87. BORMAN, K., y COTNER, B. (2000). No Child Left Behind: The Federal Government Gets Serious About Accountability. The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education. In Richard Arum y Irenee R. Beattie (Eds.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. BIFULCO, R. y LADD, H. (2006). The impacts of Charter Schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. American Education Finance Association. Vol. 1. ELMORE, Richard. (2002) Unwarranted Intrusion. Education Next. Vol. 2 no. 1. Gap in Education.Standards-Based Reform and the Poverty Gap: Lessons for No Child Left Behind. In Adam Gamoran (Ed). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. GONZALES, P., Williams, T., JOCELYN, L., ROEY, S., KASTBERG, D., y BRENWALD, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. (Disponible en: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf). HAMILTON, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of research in education. Vol 27. HEINRICH, C. J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 37. HENIG, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates : the case of Charter Schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. JACOB, B. y LEVITT, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalance and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. GAMORAN, A. (2007). Introduction: Can Standards-Based Reform Help Reduced the Poverty. JENKS y PHILLIPS (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. The black-white test score gap. In Jenks and Phillips (Eds). Washington, DC.: Brooking Institute Press. KIM, J., y SUNDERMAN, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child LeftBehind Act: Implications for Educational Equity. Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 8. Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as a measure of educators’ productivity. Jurnal of Human Resources, No. 37. MIRON, G. y HORN, J. (2003). Evaluation of Connecticut Charter Schools and the Charter School Initiative. Evaluation center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI NELSON, J., STUART P., y MCCARTHY, M. (2007). Standards-based reform: Real change or political smoke screen. Critical issues in education: Dialogs and Dialectics. 6th Edition. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies. NI, Y. y RORRER. A. (2012) Twice Considered: Charter Schools and Student Achievement in Utah. Economics of Education Review. RAVITCH, D. (2009). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, New York: Basic Books. Sass, T. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. American education finance association. Vol. 1 SCHMITT y WHITSETT, 2008. Using evaluation data to strike a balance between stakeholders and accountability systems. New Directions for Evaluation. Special Issue: Consequences of No Child Left Behind for Educational Evaluation. No. 117. |
type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
type_content |
Text |
publishDate |
2011-01-01 |
date_accessioned |
2012-01-01T00:00:00Z |
date_available |
2012-01-01T00:00:00Z |
url |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871 |
url_doi |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871 |
issn |
0123-4471 |
eissn |
2462-9782 |
citationstartpage |
47 |
citationendpage |
63 |
url2_str_mv |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/download/871/794 |
_version_ |
1823378421566144512 |