Faculty and Staff

This paper presents a Bayesian framework for evaluative classification. Current education policy debates center on arguments about whether and how to use student test score data in school and personnel evaluation. Proponents of such use argue that refusing to use data violates both the public’s need to hold schools accountable when they use taxpayer dollars and students’ right to educational opportunities. Opponents of formulaic use of test-score data argue that most standardized test data is susceptible to fatal technical flaws, is a partial picture of student achievement, and leads to behavior that corrupts the measures.

A Bayesian perspective on summative ordinal classification is a possible framework for combining quantitative outcome data for students with the qualitative types of evaluation that critics of high-stakes testing advocate. This paper describes the key characteristics of a Bayesian perspective on classification, describes a method to translate a naïve Bayesian classifier into a point-based system for evaluation, and draws conclusions from the comparison on the construction of algorithmic (including point-based) systems that could capture the political and practical benefits of a Bayesian approach. The most important practical conclusion is that point-based systems with fixed components and weights cannot capture the dynamic and political benefits of a reciprocal relationship between professional judgment and quantitative student outcome data.

This is a brief text intended for use in undergraduate school-and-society classes. Your class may also be titled “Social foundations of education.” “Social foundations of education” is an interdisciplinary field that includes both humanities and social-science perspectives on schooling. It thus includes study of the philosophy and history of education as well as sociological, economic, anthropological, and political perspectives on schooling.

The core of most social foundations classes lies in the relationship between formal schooling and broader society. This emphasis means that while some parts of psychology may be related to the core issues of social foundations classes—primarily social psychology—the questions that are asked within a social-foundations class are different from the questions raised in child development, educational psychology, and most teaching-methods classes. For example, after finishing the first chapter of this text, you should be able to answer the question, “Why does the federal government pay public schools to feed poor students at breakfast and lunch?” Though there is some psychology research tying nutrition to behavior and learning, the policy is based on much broader expectations of schools. In this case, “Children learn better if they are well-fed” both is based on research and also is an incomplete answer.

The current debate over graduate rate calculations and results has glossed over the relationship between student migration and the accuracy of various graduation rates proposed over the past five years. Three general grade-based graduation rates have been proposed recently, and each has a parallel version that includes an adjustment for migration, whether international, internal to the U.S., or between different school sectors. All of the adjustment factors have a similar form, allowing simulation of estimates from real data, assuming different unmeasured net migration rates. In addition, a new age-based graduation rate, based on mathematical demography, allows the simulation of estimates on a parallel basis using data from Virginia's public schools.

Both the direct analysis and simulation demonstrate that graduation rates can only be useful with accurate information about student migration. A discussion of Florida's experiences with longitudinal cohort graduation rates highlights some of the difficulties with the current status of the oldest state databases and the need for both technical confidence and definitional clarity. Meeting the No Child Left Behind mandates for school-level graduation rates requires confirmation of transfers and an audit of any state system for accuracy, and basing graduation rates on age would be a significant improvement over rates calculated using grade-based data.

The spread of academic testing for accountability purposes in multiple countries has obscured at least two historical purposes of academic testing: community ritual and management of the social structure. Testing for accountability is very different from the purpose of academic challenges one can identify in community “examinations” in 19th century North America, or exams’ controlling access to the civil service in Imperial China. Rather than testing for ritual or access to mobility, the modern uses of testing are much closer to the state-building project of a tax census, such as the Domesday Book of medieval Britain after the Norman Invasion, the social engineering projects described in James Scott's Seeing like a State (1998), or the “mapping the world” project that David Nye described in America as Second Creation (2004). This paper will explore both the instrumental and cultural differences among testing as ritual, testing as mobility control, and testing as state-building.

One way to view ‘equitable pedagogy’ is through an opportunity to learn (OTL) lens, meaning that regardless of race, class, or culture, a student has access to rigorous and meaningful content, as well as appropriate resources and instruction necessary to learn and demonstrate understanding of that content. Assessment holds a unique position in the classroom in that it can both uncover whether inequitable conditions exist (i.e., performance gaps, denied OTL) and provide an OTL by mediating communication between teacher and students regarding learning progress and what is important to learn. Nevertheless, individuals entering teacher education programs often hold deficit views toward marginalized students, such as Language Minorities (LMs), believe that assessment strictly serves to evaluate learning, and do not do consider how language and culture influence student thinking–views supplanting assessment’s role at supporting an equitable pedagogy for LMs. Through surveys, interviews, program artifacts, and classroom observation, I report on a case study of one pre-service physics teacher, Dean, to depict how his expertise at assessing science did evolve throughout his yearlong teacher education program in terms of (a) becoming more knowledgeable of the role of language and (b) developing a belief in incorporating ‘discourse’ while assessing science. Within the case study, I analyze one particular episode from Dean’s teaching practicum to highlight remaining challenges for pre-service teachers to integrate science and language in classroom assessment—namely, interpreting students’ use of language along with their understanding of core science ideas. The findings underscore the need for connecting language and equity issues to content-area assessment in teacher preparation.

National and state organizations have developed policies calling upon afterschool programs (ASPs, 3–6 pm) to serve a fruit or vegetable (FV) each day for snack, while eliminating foods and beverages high in added-sugars, and to ensure children accumulate a minimum of 30 min/d of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Few efficacious and cost-effective strategies exist to assist ASP providers in achieving these important public health goals. This paper reports on the design and conceptual framework of Making Healthy Eating and Physical Activity (HEPA) Policy Practice in ASPs, a 3-year group randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of strategies designed to improve snacks served and increase MVPA in children attending community-based ASPs. Twenty ASPs, serving over 1800 children (6–12 years) will be enrolled and match-paired based on enrollment size, average daily min/d MVPA, and days/week FV served, with ASPs randomized after baseline data collection to immediate intervention or a 1-year delayed group. The framework employed, STEPs (Strategies To Enhance Practice), focuses on intentional programming of HEPA in each ASPs' daily schedule, and includes a grocery store partnership to reduce price barriers to purchasing FV, professional development training to promote physical activity to develop core physical activity competencies, as well as ongoing technical support/assistance. Primary outcome measures include children's accelerometry-derived MVPA and time spend sedentary while attending an ASP, direct observation of staff HEPA promoting and inhibiting behaviors, types of snacks served, and child consumption of snacks, as well as, cost of snacks via receipts and detailed accounting of intervention delivery costs to estimate cost-effectiveness.

Background: GoGirlGo! (GGG) is designed to increase girls’ physical activity (PA) using a health behavior and PA-based curriculum and is widely available for free to afterschool programs across the nation. However, GGG has not been formally evaluated. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the GGG curricula to improve PA, and self-efficacy for and enjoyment of PA in elementary aged girls (i.e., 5-13 years).

Methods: Nine afterschool programs were recruited to participate in the pilot (within subjects repeated measures design). GGG is a 12-week program, with a once a week, one-hour lesson with 30 minutes of education and 30 minutes of PA). Data collection occurred at baseline, mid (twice), post, and at follow-up (3-months after the intervention ended). PA was assessed via accelerometry at each time point. Self-efficacy for and enjoyment of PA was measured using the Self-Efficacy Scale and the Short-PA enjoyment scale and was assessed at baseline, post, and follow-up. Fidelity was assessed at midpoint.

Results: Across all age groups there was a statistically significant increase in PA. Overall, on days GGG was offered girls accumulated an average of 11 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA compared to 8 minutes during non-GGG days. There was a statistically significant difference in girls’ self-efficacy for PA reported between baseline and post, which was maintained at follow-up. An improvement in enjoyment of PA for girls was found between baseline and follow-up. According to fidelity assessment, 89% of the activities within the curriculum were completed each lesson. Girls appeared to respond well to the curriculum but girls 5-7 years had difficulties paying attention and understanding discussion questions.

Conclusions: Even though there were statistically significant differences in self-efficacy for PA and enjoyment of PA, minimal increases in girls’ PA were observed. GGG curricula improvements are warranted. Future GGG programming should explore offering GGG every day, modifying activities so that they are moderate-to-vigorous in intensity, and providing additional trainings that allow staff to better implement PA and improve behavior management techniques. With modifications, GGG could provide a promising no-cost curriculum that afterschool programs may implement to help girls achieve recommendations for PA.