Improving Arizona English language learners' mathematics achievement using curriculum-based measures
This study was an investigation of the effectiveness of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) on the math achievement of first and second grade English Language Learners (ELL). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 led to a new educational reform, which identifies and provides services to students in need of academic support based on English language proficiency. Students are from certain demographics: minorities, low-income families, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. NCLB intended to lead as to improvement in the quality of the United States educational system.
Four classes from the community of Kayenta, Arizona in the Navajo Nation were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, one each per grade. All four classes used the state-approved, core math curriculum, but one class in each grade was provided with weekly CBMs for an entire school year that included sample questions developed from the Arizona Department of Education performance standards. The CBMs contained at least one question from each of the five math strands: number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data and probability.
The NorthWest Evaluation Assessment (NWEA) served as the pretest and posttest for all four groups. The SAT 10 (RIT scores) math test, administered near the time of the pretest, served as the covariate in the analysis. Two analysis of covariance tests revealed no statistically significant treatment effects, subject gender effects, or interactions for either Grade 1 or Grade 2. Achievement levels were relatively constant across both genders and the two grade levels.
Despite increasing emphasis on assessment and accountability, the achievement gaps between these subpopulations and the general population of students continues to widen. It appears that other variables are responsible for the different achievement levels found among students. Researchers have found that teachers with math certification, degrees related to math, and advanced course work in math leads to improved math performance over students of teachers who lack those qualifications. The design of the current study did not permit analyses of teacher or school effects.
Closing the achievement gap between low-income, marginalized, racially, and linguistically diverse students has proven difficult. Research has outlined the effects of funding on student achievement in a manner that focuses the attention on dollars expended, in order overcome barriers to learning. Arizona has long been recognized for its education funding disparity, and its inability to balance fiscal capacity in a manner that serves to improve educational outcomes.
This dissertation examines how Arizona funds its education system. It measures horizontal inequity in a robust manner by examining those fiscal capacity resources directly related to learning and poverty. Recognizing districts with higher concentrations of special needs students will impact fiscal capacity at the district level, this dissertation applies a non-linear analysis to measure how English language learners/ limited English proficient (ELL/ LEP) student proportionality impacts federal and state revenue per pupil, ELL expenditures per pupil, and total expenditures per pupil.
Using the Gini Ratio, McCloone Index, Coefficient of Variation, and Theil inequality index, this dissertation confirms that significant education funding disparity exists across Arizona’s school districts. This dissertation also shows the proportion of English language learners is negatively related to local revenue per pupil, and ELL expenditures per ELL pupil.
Arizona has characteristically funded the public education system inequitably and positioned its students in a manner that stratifies achievement gaps based on wealth. Targeted funding toward ELLs is in no way meaningfully related to the proportion of ELLs in a district. Conceptually the way in which equity is defined, and measured, may require re-evaluation, beyond correlated inputs and outputs. This conceptual re-evaluation of equity must include the decision making process of administrative leaders which influence the quality of those resources related to student learning.
The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.