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 e...

Full description

Autores:
Martínez, Lina
Prada, Sergio
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2012
Institución:
Universidad de Caldas
Repositorio:
Repositorio U. de Caldas
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co:ucaldas/18997
Acceso en línea:
https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/18997
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
Palabra clave:
Educación
ningún niño atrás
consecuencias inesperadas
evaluación de políticas públicas
Education
no child left behind
unexpected consequences
public policy evaluation
-
Rights
openAccess
License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
id UCALDAS2_23dd481c0c913e3952434adc5aa46b55
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co:ucaldas/18997
network_acronym_str UCALDAS2
network_name_str Repositorio U. de Caldas
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv Consequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States case
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
Educación
ningún niño atrás
consecuencias inesperadas
evaluación de políticas públicas
Education
no child left behind
unexpected consequences
public policy evaluation
-
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
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Martínez, Lina
Prada, Sergio
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Martínez, Lina
Prada, Sergio
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv Educación
ningún niño atrás
consecuencias inesperadas
evaluación de políticas públicas
topic Educación
ningún niño atrás
consecuencias inesperadas
evaluación de políticas públicas
Education
no child left behind
unexpected consequences
public policy evaluation
-
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Education
no child left behind
unexpected consequences
public policy evaluation
-
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.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2012-06-22 00:00:00
2023-04-30T15:02:01Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2012-06-22 00:00:00
2023-04-30T15:02:01Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2012-06-22
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv Journal article
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 0123-4471
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/18997
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv 2462-9782
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
identifier_str_mv 0123-4471
2462-9782
url https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/18997
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv 63
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv 1
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv 47
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv 14
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv Revista de Antropología y Sociología : Virajes
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv 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.
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.
GAMORAN, A. (2007). Introduction: Can Standards-Based Reform Help Reduced the Poverty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv Núm. 1 , Año 2012 : Enero - Junio
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/download/871/794
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Universidad de Caldas
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
institution Universidad de Caldas
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/bitstream/ucaldas/18997/1/ORE.xml
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv ac3d1e4a259703e186f5b7cf17e92fb2
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Caldas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_ 1800543287882285056
spelling Martínez, Linafd8e56dba32f2269914b2943a2c0fab5Prada, Sergio209abc63dfca075396bf30ff9f1dbef52012-06-22 00:00:002023-04-30T15:02:01Z2012-06-22 00:00:002023-04-30T15:02:01Z2012-06-220123-4471https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/189972462-9782https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871En 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.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.application/pdfspaUniversidad de Caldashttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871Educaciónningún niño atrásconsecuencias inesperadasevaluación de políticas públicasEducationno child left behindunexpected consequencespublic policy evaluation-Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados UnidosConsequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States caseArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a856314714Revista de Antropología y Sociología : VirajesAUDREY 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.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.GAMORAN, A. (2007). Introduction: Can Standards-Based Reform Help Reduced the Poverty.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.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.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.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.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, MINELSON, 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. 1SCHMITT 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.Núm. 1 , Año 2012 : Enero - Juniohttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/download/871/794OREORE.xmltext/xml2620https://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/bitstream/ucaldas/18997/1/ORE.xmlac3d1e4a259703e186f5b7cf17e92fb2MD51ucaldas/18997oai:repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co:ucaldas/189972023-04-30 10:02:02.069Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Caldasbdigital@metabiblioteca.com

Publicaciones similares