The school quality assessment process under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is criticized for oversimplifying and overemphasizing standardized test results and unfairly targeting diverse, urban schools. There has been much development in alternative test score evaluations, especially value-added models. These developments have tilted the public discourse away from the original discussion about how to best assess school quality. Although test scores are an important metric for learning, school quality embodies more than this external evaluation. Stakeholders are uniquely positioned to internally evaluate the school learning environment that is central to school quality. This study compares the external NCLB testing-based assessment to the internal stakeholder assessment using longitudinal data from Milwaukee’s School Climate Report Cards. Each tool is found to have scope limits and vulnerabilities to exogenous bias based on school and student-body characteristics. Combining both evaluations forms a broader assessment, reduces biases, and widens the evaluation of school quality.
BallouD.SandersW.WrightP. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 37-65.
2.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
3.
BraunH.JenkinsF.GriggW.TirreW. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
4.
BrykA. S.DriscollM. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.
5.
BrykA. S.LeeV. E.HollandP. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BurkhamD.ReadyD.LeeV.LogerfoL. (2004). Social class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1-31.
9.
BushawW. J.LopezS. J. (2011). Betting on teachers: The 43rd annual Phi Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan Magazine, 93(1), 8-26.
10.
Center for Greater Philadelphia. (2011). Value-added assessment and No Child Left Behind. Available from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/
11.
ChudowskyN.ChudowskyV.KoberN. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind?Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
12.
ColemanJ. S., United States Office of Education, and National Center for Education Statistics (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
13.
CreemersB. P. M.KyriakidesL. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London, England: Routledge.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2008).Improving high schools and the role of NCLB. In SundermanG. (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, & school reform, (pp. 153-1714). New York, NY: Corwin Press.
15.
Darling-HammondL. (2004a). From “Separate but Equal” to “No Child Left Behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In MeierD.WoodG. (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-33). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
16.
Darling-HammondL. (2004b). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
17.
DowneyD. B.von HippelP. T.BrohB. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer?American Sociological Review, 69, 613-635.
18.
DowneyD. B.von HippelP. T.HughesM. (2008). Are “Failing” schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81, 242-270.
19.
DuncanA. (2009, Winter). Elevating the teaching profession. American Educator, pp. 3-5.
20.
EhrenbergR. G.BrewerD. J.GamoranA.WillmsJ. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science, 2, 1-30.
EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK.OlsonL. S. (2000). Summer learning and home environment. In KahlenbergR. (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility, (pp. 9-30). Ann Arbor, MI: Century Foundation Press.
23.
FinleyM. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 57, 233-243.
24.
FisherC. S.HoutM.JankowskiM. S.LucasS. R.SwidlerA.VossK. (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
FullerB. (2006, August9). “Accountability plus”: As national test scores stall, rethinking No Child Left Behind. Education Week, (pp. 32-34).
26.
GrahamP. A. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s changing needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
GrantG. (1988). The world we created at Hamilton High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
GreeneJ. P. (2006). Leaving boys behind: Public high school graduation rates. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute.
29.
GreenwaldR.HedgesL. V.LaineR. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
30.
GrodskyE.GamoranA. (2003). The relationship between professional development and professional community in American schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14, 1-29.
31.
GrodskyE.WarrenJ. R.FeltsE. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 385-404.
32.
GuldemondH.BoskerR. J. (2009). School effects on students’ progress—A dynamic perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 255-268.
33.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA.RussellJ.. . .BarneyH. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Pittsburgh, PA: RAND.
34.
HanushekE. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45-62.
35.
HanushekE. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 143-163.
36.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
37.
HealyK. (2007, November8). Specialization and status in philosophy. In University of Notre Dame Department of Sociology Colloquium. University of Notre Dame.
38.
HedgesL. V.LaineR. D.GreenwaldR. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes (An Exchange: Part 1). Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14.
39.
KaltonG.KasparzykD. (1986). The treatment of missing survey data. Survey Methodology, 12(1), 1-16.
KonstantopoulosS. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence from NLS: 72, HSB: 82, and NELS: 92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550-2581.
42.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
43.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
44.
LareauA. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
LeeV. E.BurkamD. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
46.
LinnR. L. (2005). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, Article 33.
47.
LinnR. L.HaugC. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.
48.
LuytenH.TymmsP.JonesP. (2009). Assessing school effects without controlling for prior achievement?School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 145-165.
49.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
50.
MaxwellS. E.TiberioS. S. (2007). Multilevel models of change: Fundamental concepts and relationships to mixed models and latent growth-curve models. In OngA. D.van DulmenM. H. M. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology, (pp: 953-982). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.KoretzD. M.HamiltonL. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Arlington, TX: RAND.
52.
MetzM. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
53.
MilesiC.GamoranA. (2006). Effects of class size and instruction on kindergarten achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 287-313.
*Milwaukee Public Schools. (2008). 2006-2007 district report card. Division of Research and Assessment in collaboration with the Office of Communication and Public Affairs.
NisbettR. E. (1998). Race, genetics, and IQ. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score gap, (pp: 86-101). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
63.
NovakJ. R.FullerB. (2003, December). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores, but different students, bring federal sanctions (PACE Policy Brief 03-4). Retrievied from: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EPRU-0312-48-RW.pdf.
64.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
65.
OlsonL.RobelenE. W. (2004, September28). Data show schools making progress on federal goals. Education Week, 24, 1-25.
66.
PackerJ. (2004, July). No Child Left Behind and adequate yearly progress fundamental flaws: A forecast for failure. National Education Association annual meeting, Center on Education Policy, Washington, DC.
67.
PallasA. M.EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L.CadiganD. (1987). Children who do exceptionally well in first grade. Sociology of Education, 60, 257-271.
68.
PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (2006). Is your child’s school effective? Don’t rely on NCLB to tell you. Education Next Fall, 6, 76-80.
69.
PhillipsM. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 633-662.
70.
PhillipsM.Brooks-GunnJ.DuncanG. J.KlebanovP.CraneJ. (1998). Family background, parenting practices, and the Black-White test score gap. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap, (pp: 103-145). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
71.
PowellA. G.CohenD. K.FarrarE.HampelR. L.SizerT. R., & National Association of Independent Schools, Commission on Educational Issues, & National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
72.
PriceH. E. (2010). Does No Child Left Behind really capture school quality? Evidence from an urban school district. Educational Policy, 24, 799-814.
73.
QuillianL.PagerD. (2001). Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 717-767.
74.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
75.
RumbergerR. W.LarsonK. A. (1998). Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout. American Journal of Education, 107, 1-34.
76.
SadovnikA. R.DworkinA. G.GamoranA.HallinanM.ScottJ. (2008). Conclusion: Sociological perspectives on NCLB and federal involvement in education. In SadovnikA. R.O’DayJ. A.BohrnstedtG. W.BormankK. M. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap (pp. 359-374). New York, NY: Routledge.
77.
SammonsP.LuytenH. (2009). Editorial article for special issue on alternative methods for assessing school effects and schooling effects. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 133-143.
78.
ScottC. (2009). Mining the opportunities in “differentiated accountability”: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind pilots in four states. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy.
79.
ShiemanS. (2009). Residential stability, neighborhood racial composition, and the subjective assessment of neighborhood problems among older adults. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 608-632.
80.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1991). Systematic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing, (pp: 233-267). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
81.
StataCorp. (2007). Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: Author.
82.
SundermanG. L. (2008). Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
83.
ThompsonT. G.BarnesR. E. (2007). Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the promise to our nation’s children. Washington, DC: The Commission on No Child Left Behind, The Aspen Institute.
84.
TourangeauR.RipsL. J.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
85.
TraceyC. A.SundermanG. L.OrfieldG. (2005). Changing NCLB district accountability standards: Implications for racial equity. Los Angeles: The Harvard Civil Rights Project.
86.
TyackD. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ValenciaR. R.ValenzuelaA.SloanK.FoleyD. E. (2001). Let’s treat the cause, not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 318-323.
89.
Van de GriftW. (2009). Reliability and validity in measuring the value added of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 269-285.
90.
von HippelP. T. (2009). Achievement, learning, and seasonal impact as measures of school effectiveness: It’s better to be valid than reliable. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 187-213.
91.
WillisP. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York, NY: University of California Press.
92.
WolfeE. W.RayL. M.HarrisD. C. (2004). A Rasch analysis of three measures of teacher perception generated from the school and staffing survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 842-860.
93.
YehS. S. (2006). High-stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure?Teachers College Record, 108, 621-661.
