Multiple measures and high-stakes decisions: A framework for combining measures

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 32-41

  Chester, Mitchell D ^a  

^a Ohio Department of Education   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; High stakes testing; Multiple measures

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142722724     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00126.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2000) AERA position statement: High-stakes testing in preK–12 education. Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Baldi, S., Skidmore, D., &Ritter, S. (2000) Developing alternatives to traditional standardized assessments: The Philadelphia grade four “second-chance” assessments. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
4. Chester, M. D., Orr, M., &Christman, J. (2001) Consequential validity of Philadelphia's accountability system: Triangulating four years of multiple sources of evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
5. Cohen, D. K., &Hill, H. C. (1998) Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), pp. 294–343.
6. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Research for Action, & OMG Center for Collaborative Learning. (1998) Children achieving: Philadelphia's education reform progress report series 1996–97. Philadelphia: Author.
7. Heubert, J. P., &Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999) High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Kane, T. J., &Staiger, D. O. (2002), Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch, (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 235–269). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
9. Kannapel, J., Coe, P., Aagaard, L., Moore, B. D., &Reeves, C. A, (2002) Teacher responses to rewards and sanctions: Effects of and reactions to Kentucky's high-stakes accountability program. In B. L. Whitford & K. Jones, (Eds.), Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's reform efforts (pp. 127–148). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10. Koretz, D. M., &Barron, S. I. (1998) The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
11. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990) The RAND Change Agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.
12. McNeil, L. M. (2000) Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
13. National Reading Panel. (2000) Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
14. Porter, A., &Chester, M. D. (2002) Building a high-quality assessment and accountability program: The Philadelphia example. In D. Ravitch, (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 285–337). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
15. Porter, A. C., Chester, M. D., &Schlesinger, M. D. (in press). Framework for an effective assessment and accountability program: The Philadelphia example. Teachers College Record.
16. Saxe, G. B., Franke, M. L., Gearhart, M., Howard, S., &Michele, C. (1997) Teachers shifting assessment practices in the context of educational reform in mathematics (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 471). Los Angeles: CRESST.
17. School District of Philadelphia. (1998) Reaching higher. Philadelphia: Author.
18. Shepard, L. A. (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
19. Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., &Kahle, J. B. (2000) Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 357–384.