3 ms·

> where resources are assigned on merit No Child Left Behind was supposed to implement this; the problem that quickly became obvious is that schools that were

> where resources are assigned on merit No Child Left Behind was supposed to implement this; the problem that quickly became obvious is that schools that were already doing well got more money because their students had higher scores and schools that were struggling actually lost funding because their scores were garbage. This contributed to the gap widening instead of closing. It's difficult to figure out how to develop a system where resources are allocated based on objective potential rather than historical metrics.

zomglings 5y ago
I did not know that about No Child Left Behind. If you have some links, would really appreciate them. I will look myself, as well. Sounds like a great bit of history to learn from. I do believe that academics have come up with the right approach to determine the value of research - anonymized peer review. The problem is, there are always signals that leak through that veil of anonymity that help you determine who the authors and even the reviewers actually are.
- nexuist 5y ago
  https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 > Perhaps the most adverse unintended consequence of NCLB is that it creates incentives for schools to rid themselves of students who are not doing well, producing higher scores at the expense of vulnerable students' education. Studies have found that sanctioning schools based on average student scores leads schools to retain students in grade so that grade-level scores will look better (although these students ultimately do less well and drop out at higher rates), exclude low-scoring students from admissions and encourage such students to transfer or drop out. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-child-left-behind-what-worked-what-didnt https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-chil... > Ahn found a very different story among schools where lots of students were struggling. For these, often poorer schools, the law was like quicksand. Donna Brown is director of federal program monitoring and support for North Carolina's public schools, and she saw the quicksand firsthand. > "When I came to the department in 2004," Brown remembers, "there were nine schools in the state that were identified for some level of improvement sanction. And, by 2008-9, there were 521."
dilawar 5y ago
Interesting. My opinion is to fund proportional to the ratio in change of some objective function. For example, an 2x improvement in text scores get a school x thousands. At least a significant chunk of money will motovate the bottom line to improve.

zomglings 5y ago

I did not know that about No Child Left Behind. If you have some links, would really appreciate them. I will look myself, as well. Sounds like a great bit of history to learn from. I do believe that academics have come up with the right approach to determine the value of research - anonymized peer review. The problem is, there are always signals that leak through that veil of anonymity that help you determine who the authors and even the reviewers actually are.

nexuist 5y ago
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 > Perhaps the most adverse unintended consequence of NCLB is that it creates incentives for schools to rid themselves of students who are not doing well, producing higher scores at the expense of vulnerable students' education. Studies have found that sanctioning schools based on average student scores leads schools to retain students in grade so that grade-level scores will look better (although these students ultimately do less well and drop out at higher rates), exclude low-scoring students from admissions and encourage such students to transfer or drop out. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-child-left-behind-what-worked-what-didnt https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-chil... > Ahn found a very different story among schools where lots of students were struggling. For these, often poorer schools, the law was like quicksand. Donna Brown is director of federal program monitoring and support for North Carolina's public schools, and she saw the quicksand firsthand. > "When I came to the department in 2004," Brown remembers, "there were nine schools in the state that were identified for some level of improvement sanction. And, by 2008-9, there were 521."

dilawar 5y ago

Interesting. My opinion is to fund proportional to the ratio in change of some objective function. For example, an 2x improvement in text scores get a school x thousands. At least a significant chunk of money will motovate the bottom line to improve.