Test-based educational accountability - Research evidence and implications

Zeitschrift fur Padagogik

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 777-790

  Koretz, Daniel ^a  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57249115846     PISSN: 00443247     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baker, G. (2002): Distortion and risk in optimal incentive contracts. In: Journal of Human Resources 38, number 4, pp. 728-751.
2. Bevan, G./Hood, C. (2006): What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. In: Public Administration 84, pp. 517-538.
3. Campbell, D.T. (1975): Assessing the impact of planned social change. In: Lyons, G.M. (Ed.): Social Research and Public Policies: The Dartmouth/OECD Conference, pp. 3-45. Reprinted in Evaluation and Program Planning ( 1979) 2, pp. 67-90.
4. Dranove, D./Kessler, D./McClellan, M./Satterthwaite, M. (2003): Is more information better? The effects of "report cards" on health care providers. In: The Journal of Political Economy 111, number 3, pp. 555-588.
5. Figlio, D./Getzler, L.S. (2002): Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system. (Working Paper No. 9307). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307).
6. Hambleton, R.K./Jaeger, R.M./Koretz, D./Linn, R.L./Millman, J./Phillips, S.E. (1995): Review of the Measurement Quality of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System, 1991-1994. Frankfort: Office of Education Accountability, Kentucky General Assembly, June.
7. Heckman, J.J./Heinrich, C./Smith, J. (2002): The performance of performance standards. In: Journal of Human Resources 38, number 4, pp. 778-881.
8. Jacob, B. (2005): Accountability, incentives and behavior: the impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. In: Journal of Public Economics 89, pp. 761-796.
9. Jacob, B. (2007): Test-based accountability and student achievement: An investigation of differential performance on NAEP and state assessments. (Working paper No. 12817). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Kane, M.T. (2006): Validation. In: Brennan, R.L. (Ed.): Educational measurement, 4th ed. American Council on Education/Praeger. Westport, CT: pp. 17-64.
11. Klein, S.P./Hamilton, L.S./McCaffrey, D.F./Stecher, B.M. (2000): What do test scores in Texas tell us? (Issue Paper IP-202). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202/.
12. Koretz, D. (1986): Trends in Educational Achievement. Washington, D.C.: Congressional budget Office, April.
13. Koretz, D./Barron, S.I. (1998): The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). MR-1014-EDU. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14. Koretz, D./Barron, S./Mitchell, K./Stecher, B. (1996): The Perceived Effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). MR-792-PCT/FF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15. Koretz, D./Hamilton, L.S. (2006): Testing for accountability in K-12. In: Brennan, R. L. (Ed.): Educational measurement, 4th ed. American Council on Education/ Praeger. Westport, CT: pp. 531-578.
16. Koretz, D./Linn, R.L./Dunbar, S.B./Shepard, L.A. (1991): The effects of high-stakes testing: Preliminary evidence about generalization across tests. In: Linn, R.L. (Chair): The Effects of High Stakes Testing, symposium presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education in Chicago, IL. April.
17. Koretz, D./McCaffrey, D./Hamilton, L. (2001): Toward a Framework for Validating Gains Under High-Stakes Conditions. (CSE Technical Report 551). Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
18. Rothstein, R. (2008): Holding Accountability to Account: How Scholarship and Experience in Other Fields Inform Exploration of Performance Incentives in Education. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, (http://www.performanceincentives.org/data/files/directory/ConferencePapersNews/ Rothstein.pdf).
19. Rubinstein, J. (2002): The Princeton Review: Cracking the MCAS Grade 10 Mathematics. New York, NY: Random House.
20. Smith, P. (1995): On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. In: International Journal of Public Administration 18, number 2 and 3, pp. 277-310.
21. Stecher, B. (2002): Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In: Hamilton, L. et al (Eds.): Test-based Accountability: A Guide for Practitioners and Policymakers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, pp. 79-100.
22. Stecher, B./Barron, S.I. (1999): Quadrennial Milepost Accountability Testing in Kentucky. (CSE Technical Report 505). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
23. Stecher, B.M./Mitchell, K.J. (1995): Portfolio Driven Reform: Vermont Teachers' Understanding of Mathematical Problem Solving (CSE Technical Report 400). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.