Reforming federal testing policy to support teaching and learning

Educational Policy

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 495-524

  Yeh, Stuart S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Assessment; Computer adaptive testing; NCLB; Testing; Testing policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744815280     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904805284119     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Ackerman, T. (1987). The use of unidimensional item parameter estimates of multidimensional items in adaptive testing (ACT Research Report Series 87-13). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
2. Baron, J. B., & Wolf, D. P. (1996). Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J., & Li, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
4. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. CTB/McGraw Hill. (2004). Overview of the U.S. Department of Education's position on the use of computer-adaptive testing. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from http://wwwctb.com/media/articles/pdfs/AssessmentRelated/ Computer_Based_Testing.pdf?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474395222381
7. Elmore, R. F. (2004). Conclusion: The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 274-296). New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (2). 95-113.
9. Folk, V. G., & Green, B. F. (1989). Adaptive estimation when the unidimensionality assumption of IRT is violated. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13 (4). 373-389.
10. Gordon, S. P., & Reese, M. (1997). High stakes testing: Worth the price? Journal of school leadership, 7, 345-368.
11. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (41). Retrieved November 26, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
12. Hardwicke, S. B., & Yoes, M. E. (1984). Attitudes and performance on computerized vs. paper-and-pencil tests. San Diego, CA: Rehab Group.
13. Hoffman, J., Pennington, J., Assaf, L., & Paris, S. (1999). High-stakes testing in reading and its effects on teachers, teaching, and students: Today in Texas, tomorrow? Unpublished manuscript.
14. Kingsbury, G. G., & Hauser, C. (2004, April). Computerized adaptive testing and No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
15. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., & Stecher, B. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Washington, DC: Institute on Education and Training, RAND.
16. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13 (3). 5-16.
17. Linn, R. L. (1990). Has item response theory increased the validity of achievement test scores? Applied Measurement in Education, 3 (2). 115-141.
18. Linn, R. L. (2004). Accountability models. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 73-95). New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31 (6). 3-16.
20. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6 (13). Retrieved October 26, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n13.html
21. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Available from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
22. O'Day, J. A. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 15-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Olson, L. (2002, February 6). Ed. dept. hints Idaho's novel testing plan unacceptable. Education Week, pp. 18-18, 21-21.
24. Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
25. Pomplun, M. (1997). State assessment and instructional change: A path model analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (3). 217-234.
26. Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27. Rothman, R. (2004). Benchmarking and alignment of state standards and assessments. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 96-114). New York: Teachers College Press.
28. Schinoff, R. B., & Steed, L. (1988). The CAT program at Miami-Dade Community College. In D. Doucette (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: The state of the art in assessment at three community colleges (pp. 25-36). Laguna Hills, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.
29. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20 (5). 8-11.
30. Smith, M. L., Noble, A., Heinecke, W., Seck, M., Parish, C., Cabay, M., et al. (1997). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona student assessment program (ASAP): Equity and teacher capacity building [CSE Technical Report No. 425]. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
31. Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10 (4). 7-11.
32. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform, Politics of Education Association Yearbook 1990 (pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
33. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Final Rule, 34 C.F.R. § 200 (2002). Available from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ FedRegister/finrule/2002-3/070502a.pdf
34. Traub, R. E., & Wolfe, R. G. (1981). Latent trait theories and the assessment of educational achievement. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 9, pp. 377-435). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
35. Trotter, A. (2003). A question of direction. Education Week, 22, 17-18, 20-21.
36. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12 (1). 15-20.
37. Weiss, D. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing for effective and efficient measurement in counseling and education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37 (2). 70-84.