Title One

1.0 CHAPTER 1.1 Background Although the push for school reform is not new, the implementation of standards and assessments to drive the promise of the educational system is a more recent contribution to academic achievement. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Central to the Courtís ruling was the notion that segregated school systems adversely affected student achievement and overall quality of education. Years after the Brown decision, the legal system remained an avenue for advocates of racial, economic, and qualitative excellence to influence the development of academic achievement. Yet, the courtroom has not been the sole avenue. The United States Congress has also initiated legislation to level population disparities in the nationís school systems. In 1965, Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the ìESEAî) to provide supplementary federal funds for disadvantaged students (Reichbach, 2004). Eligible students were selected based on test scores (Reichbach, 2004). Although Congress aimed to bring economically disadvantaged children up to basic levels of achievement, many did not feel the Act accomplished its goal. 1 Nearly 30 years later, Congress, along with President Clinton, passed the Improving Americaís Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), a revision of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. ß 6301). Nominally, it changed the ESEAís Chapter 1 funding program and renamed it Title I (Dougherty, 1998). Focused on filling the gaps in instruction and support for educationally disadvantaged children, Title I called for clear statements defining the outcomes of student learning, or ìstandards,î as well as assessments to measure student progress (Dougherty, 1998). Economically, Title I allowed schools receiving federal funds to budget resources to aid eligible students. As Dougherty explains, the goal was to transform the federal program ìfrom a remedial track for low-achievers to an accelerated, high performance for low-income and minority studentsî (Dougherty, 1998). As with the original ESEA, critics believed the gaps in academic achievement between rich and poor, white and non-white, grew wider (Reichbach, 2004). The Goals 2000: Educate America Act was also passed under the Clinton Administration (Dougherty, 1998). Goals 2000, like the IASA, is a comprehensive act that provides for the development of academic standards. Participants can use their funds to sponsor activities that ìinvolve the writing or implementation of academic standards, to focus on teaching and learning, to take a comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach to reform, to use more flexibility in the use of funds and resources, to develop links with parents and the community, or to target resources where they are most neededî (Dougherty, 1998). On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a dramatic revision to the ESEA (Reichbach, 2004). Among its provisions, the NCLB called for stronger accountability for results and increased federal funding for reading programs (Kucerik, 2002). In order to comply with the Act, states must follow two steps. First, each state 2 must establish ìchallengingî curriculum content and performance-based standards in reading and mathematics (The No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). Next, each state must implement an annual testing system to determine whether these standards for academic achievement are being met (Kucerik, 2002). Further, the NCLB Act requires states to disclose and report data from the yearly tests in annual report cards on school performance and statewide progress. These reports provide information based on race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency (Kucerik, 2002). Finally, states must develop statewide proficiency and progress objectives and make quantifiable progress in bringing students up to these minimum levels within 12 years (Kucerik, 2002). In addition to federal legislation, state-based initiatives have been developed to create, meet, and sustain scholastic achievement. In this regard, The New Standards Project (NSP), founded in 1990, has been most comprehensive. By 1995, The New Standards Project had grown into a partnership of over twenty states and urban school districts (Spalding, 1995). In total, this amounted to nearly half of all United States school children (Spalding, 1995). Spearheaded by Lauren Resnick of the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh and Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy, the New Standards Project explored alternative ways to assess student learning: portfolios, performance tasks, and projects (Spalding, 1995). The project's goal was to develop a performance-based assessment system linked to a set of high national standards. Accordingly, the New Standards Project sought to enhance curriculum, instruction, and student learning as teachers and students developed a shared understanding of the standards, how they are embodied in student work, and how the quality of that work should be judged (Spalding, 1995). 3 In 1998, Pennsylvania joined the assessment movement when, in October, the Pennsylvania State board of Education adopted Chapter IV of the School Code. Under this Chapter, annual assessments of all public school students are mandatory (Pennsylvania Administrative Code, 22 Pa. Code ß4.51, 2004). The assessments were to be based on state- determined standards of performance in academic subjects and skills (Brunner, 2003). The tests, known as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), were intended as a means of providing students, parents, educators, and citizens with an understanding of student and school performance, especially in terms of student attainment of state-set standards (Pennsylvania Administrative Code, 22 Pa. Code ß4.51, 2004). School districts can also use these test results to assess student proficiency and map new strategies for achievement (Brunner, 2003). The PSSA tests student performance in reading, writing, and mathematics. All school districts participate in the reading and writing assessments each year (Brunner, 2003). Math and reading skills have been assessed at grades five, eight, and 11; writing has been formerly tested at grades six, nine, and 11 (Brunner, 2003). Currently the PSSA writing is field-tested at grade five and eight and an operational test administered at grade 11. Participation in the writing assessment occurs before a district's six-year planning cycle begins, after three years, and at the end of the planning cycle, although districts may participate off-cycle on a voluntary basis (Brunner, 2003).