Search

Background/Context: For more than a century, standardized achievement tests have been a feature of American education. Throughout that time, critics of standardized tests have argued that their use has detrimental effects on students, schools, and curriculum. Despite these critiques, the number and uses of standardized tests have increased steadily. Though a great deal of research has focused on the technical design of tests, the history of individual tests, and general critiques of testing, there is little research that helps explain the continued use of standardized tests in American education despite near constant criticism. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This article develops a framework for understanding a basic paradox in the history of standardized testing in American education: the durability of standardized testing in the face of persistent criticism. Seeking to address this paradox, the article asks why tests have persisted and proliferated even though students dislike taking tests, educators believe that tests distort the learning process, and experts challenge the validity of test results. Research Design: This article involves a historical analysis of structural and cultural aspects of American education that help explain the particular uses and durability of testing. Conclusions/Recommendations: First, we identify three master critiques of standardized tests: distortion, waste, and misclassification. We find that, despite these persistent critiques, four important contextual features of the American education system help explain the continuous hold that standardized tests have had on American education: that the American education system is decentralized, avowedly meritocratic, publicly funded, and central to aspirations of upward mobility. These contextual factors, along with the historically contingent development of testing expertise, testing culture, and development of testing infrastructure, provide a framework for understanding the persistence of testing. Together, these factors create a dynamic system in which critiques of tests lead not to the elimination of testing, but to its further elaboration and evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Context: Recent U.S. policy has brought a shift in assessment use, from measurement tools to policy levers. In particular, testing has become a core part of teacher evaluation policies in many states, with test results becoming akin to a job evaluation. Purpose: To explore the notion of consequential validity m assessment use and examine the implications of using an assessment more as a policy tool than a measurement tool. Research Design: This is an essay concerning how assessment measures are used in educational policy contexts. Conclusions: Meaning is created by use, and the intense push for test-based accountability policies m the U.S. has fundamentally changed the nature of test use. The core meaning of tests and testing has accordingly been qualitatively changed. Attention to consequential validity counsels against use of tests to drive policy unless, and until, the results that process itself have been validated for their furtherance of recognized goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Context: The evolution of validity understandings from mid-century to now has emphasized that test validity depends on test purpose--adding consequence considerations to issues of interpretation and evidentiary warrants. Purpose: To consider the tensions created by multiple purposes for assessment and sketch briefly how we got to where we are; furthermore, to address two critically important purposes: the accountability purpose versus the learning purpose for assessment. Research Design: This is an analytic, closing commentary to this special section. Conclusions: When a test is used as an educational reform, the theory of action behind the reform should be made explicit and that theory or series of claims and assumptions is what should be examined in the validity evaluation. As to the prospect of improving the teaching profession by the use of value-added methods, I believe that this is an overly ambitious use of a potentially useful statistical tool. As these systems are being implemented, we can and should conduct validity studies designed to detect plausible shortcomings and side effects as well as intended outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Context: Validity issues are often discussed in technical terms, but the context changes when measures enter broad public debate, and a wider range of interests come into play. Purpose: This article, part of a special section of TCR, considers the political dimensions of validity questions as raised by a keynote address and panel discussion originally held at Teachers College in March 2012. Research Design: This is an analytical and reflective piece, based on the author's participation in the panel and drawing on his experience and writing on the broad issue of politics and research. Conclusions: Technical expertise in the construction and interpretation of measurements is important in the new world of high-stakes and "evidence-based" education policy, but the political realities, when measures go public, make the exclusive reliance on such expertise problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Context: Education policymakers across the country face an urgent problem: we know there is wide disparity in teacher effectiveness, but we lack meaningful tools to identify and reward the most effective teachers or to ensure that the least effective improve or leave the classroom. Purpose: This article considers the value of the national move toward value-added measures and our current fascination with objective measurements -- a fascination that stems from our collective distrust of our teachers and ourselves, and our reluctance to make judgments about the substantive narratives we teach students. Research Design- This is an analytical and reflective piece that draws upon the author's experience serving as New York State Commissioner of Education and dean of a teacher education institution in New York City. Conclusions: Value-added measures of teachers' impact on student learning are an imperfect but important tool; however, by often refusing to take responsibility for what is worth teaching, we risk cutting off important opportunities for democratic education and ultimately impoverishing students' own ability to make meaningful judgments about their world, regardless of their test scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Context: Testing accommodations have been widely utilized as a way of increasing the validity of content assessments for English language learner (ELL) students. However, concerns have also arisen regarding the appropriateness of accommodation use, including the accessibility and fairness of accommodations. While many states have developed ELL-specific accommodation policies and guidelines, little research has been available on how the accommodation policies are carried out in practice. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The present study investigated two states' accommodation policies, specifically for the states' respective large-scale Grade 8 math assessments, and conducted a case study to examine teachers' understanding of the policies and uses. The study aimed to identify issues to consider for an appropriate use of accommodations and provide useful information for policymakers to improve their accommodation policies. Research Design: The study utilized a qualitative method employing teacher surveys and interviews. The survey and interview instruments were developed based on previous literature and experts' feedback. The interview transcripts were coded by two researchers using a systematic coding scheme. Descriptive statistics of the responses were computed to observe trends across and within districts and schools. The results were also compared between states or between ELL and math teachers when applicable. Conclusions/Recommendations: Despite the limitation of the small sample in this study, the findings of the study offer practical implications for policymakers and educators in the use of accommodations for ELL students. The study found considerable variation reported by teachers with regard to the perception of accommodation decision makers, selection criteria, and the types of accommodations allowed in each state's math assessment. This variation raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the accommodation uses and the comparability of accommodated test results across schools. In this paper, we discussed a number of possible reasons for teachers' reported difficulty in keeping up with state policies: (a) lack of clear guidelines in making accommodation decisions and implementing accommodations in a standardized way, (b) lack of or limited opportunities in receiving information and communicating about accommodations among decision makers and teachers, and (c) limited resources and logistical difficulties. To support an appropriate use of accommodations for teachers, we recommend that states make efforts to provide comprehensive, operationalized guidelines for ELL accommodations, monitor the use of the guidelines, and hold regular professional meetings for ELL and content teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]