This page is copied directly from the U.S. Department of Education
No Child Left Behind web site and appears several places, including page 29
of the "NCLB
Toolkit for Teachers." The guidance below reveals important aspects
of the NCLB legislation that are being ignored by Portage Public Schools switch
to semester courses.
SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH
There are a lot of education fads. Does No Child Left Behind
do anything to prevent bad or untested programs from being used in the classroom?
For too many years, too many schools have experimented with lessons and materials
that have proven to be ineffective—at the expense of their students. Under No
Child Left Behind, federal support is targeted to those educational programs
that have been demonstrated to be effective through rigorous scientific research.
Reading First is such a program. Programs and practices grounded in scientifically
based research are not fads or untested ideas; they have proven track records
of success. By funding such programs, NCLB encourages their use, as opposed
to the use of untried programs that may later turn out to be fads. Furthermore,
NCLB’s accountability requirements bring real consequences to those schools
that continually do not improve student achievement as a result of using programs
and practices for which there is no evidence of success. Such schools will be
identified as needing improvement and required to make changes, including using
education programs that are grounded in scientifically based research.
What is scientifically based research?
When reviewing research findings to determine whether they meet the criteria
for scientifically based research,the following questions are important to consider:
- Use of rigorous,systematic and empirical methods. Does the work have
a solid theoretical or research foundation? Was it carefully designed to avoid
biased findings and unwarranted claims of effectiveness? Does the research
clearly delineate how the research was conducted,by whom it was conducted
and on whom it was conducted?
- Adequacy of data to justify the general conclusions drawn. Was the
research designed to minimize alternative explanations for observed effects?
Are the observed effects consistent with the overall conclusions and claims
of effectiveness? Does the research present convincing documentation that
the observed results were the result of the intervention? Does the research
make clear what populations were studied (i.e.,does it describe the participants’
ages, as well as their demographic, cognitive, academic and behavioral characteristics)
and does it describe to whom the findings can be generalized? Does the study
provide a full description of the outcome measures?
- Reliance on methods that provide valid data across multiple measurements
and observations. Are the data based on a single-investigator, single-classroom
study, or did multiple investigators in numerous locations collect similar
data? What procedures were in place to minimize researcher biases? Do observed
results hold up over time? Are the study interventions described in sufficient
detail to allow for replicability? Does the research explain how instructional
fidelity was ensured and assessed?
- Use of control groups. Has a randomly assigned control group or some
other kind of comparison group been used?
- Details allow for replication. Does the study clearly explain how
the treatment was designed? Is there enough detail to replicate the study?
- Acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent
experts. Has the review been rigorous and objective? Has the research
been carefully reviewed by unbiased individuals who were not part of the research
study? Have the findings been subjected to external scrutiny and verification?
For more information on quality research, go to the What
Works Clearinghouse Web site at www.w-w-c.org.
To comment on this comment, click
here.
go back to portagescience.org