Consecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos

Consequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States case

dc.creatorMartínez, Lina
dc.creatorPrada, Sergio
dc.date2012-06-22 00:00:00
dc.date2012-06-22 00:00:00
dc.date2012-06-22
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-06T18:20:45Z
dc.date.available2023-09-06T18:20:45Z
dc.identifier0123-4471
dc.identifierhttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
dc.identifier2462-9782
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/8695793
dc.descriptionEn 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.
dc.description2012 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.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad de Caldas
dc.relation63
dc.relation1
dc.relation47
dc.relation14
dc.relationRevista de Antropología y Sociología: Virajes
dc.relationAUDREY 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.
dc.relationBORMAN, 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.
dc.relationBIFULCO, R. y LADD, H. (2006). The impacts of Charter Schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. American Education Finance Association. Vol. 1.
dc.relationELMORE, Richard. (2002) Unwarranted Intrusion. Education Next. Vol. 2 no. 1.
dc.relationGAMORAN, A. (2007). Introduction: Can Standards-Based Reform Help Reduced the Poverty.
dc.relationGap 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.
dc.relationGONZALES, 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).
dc.relationHAMILTON, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of research in education. Vol 27.
dc.relationHEINRICH, C. J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 37.
dc.relationHENIG, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates : the case of Charter Schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
dc.relationJACOB, B. y LEVITT, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalance and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
dc.relationJEYNES, 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.
dc.relationJENKS 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.
dc.relationKIM, 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.
dc.relationKIM, 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.
dc.relationKoretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as a measure of educators’ productivity. Jurnal of Human Resources, No. 37.
dc.relationMIRON, G. y HORN, J. (2003). Evaluation of Connecticut Charter Schools and the Charter School Initiative. Evaluation center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
dc.relationNELSON, 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.
dc.relationNI, Y. y RORRER. A. (2012) Twice Considered: Charter Schools and Student Achievement in Utah. Economics of Education Review.
dc.relationRAVITCH, D. (2009). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, New York: Basic Books.
dc.relationSass, T. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. American education finance association. Vol. 1
dc.relationSCHMITT 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.relationNúm. 1 , Año 2012 : Enero - Junio
dc.relationhttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/download/871/794
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.sourcehttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/871
dc.subjectEducation
dc.subjectno child left behind
dc.subjectunexpected consequences
dc.subjectpublic policy evaluation
dc.subjectEducación
dc.subjectningún niño atrás
dc.subjectconsecuencias inesperadas
dc.subjectevaluación de políticas públicas
dc.titleConsecuencias de medir progreso educativo con pruebas estandarizadas: El caso de los Estados Unidos
dc.titleConsequences of assessing educational progress through standardized testing: the United States case
dc.typeArtículo de revista
dc.typeSección Educacion y politicas públicas/Education and public policy
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.typeText
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución