The Place of Assessment to Improve Learning in a Context of High Accountability

Enabling Power of Assessment

Volumn 1, Issue , 2014, Pages 337-354

  Heritage, Margaret ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability Purpose; Accountability System; Common Core State Standard; National Research Council Committee; Student Achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84995525575     PISSN: 21982643     EISSN: 21982651     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_21     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002a). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). < http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/>. Accessed 23 July 2012.
2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002b). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic performance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP test results in states with high school graduation exams. EPSL-0211-126-EPRU. Tempe: Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies Laboratory—Education Policy Research Unit.
3. Baker, E. L. (2003). From usable to useful assessment knowledge: A design problem. CSE technical report 612. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.
4. Baker, M., & Johnston, P. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high stakes testing reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193–199.
5. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems. CSE technical report 585. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation and National Center for Student Testing.
6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. New York: Open University Press.
7. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73.
8. Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1), 1–43.
9. Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21). < http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/772 >.
10. Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of fourth graders in North Cyprus. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 234–243.
11. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.
12. Center on Education Policy. (2007a). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Center on Education Policy. (2007b). State high school exit exams: Working to raise test scores. Washington, DC: Author.
14. Center for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning. (2009). < www.learningbenefits.net >. Accessed 24 July 2012.
15. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. NBER working paper 17699. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts, 2011. < www.corestandards.org >. Accessed 24 July 2012.
17. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. P. (2010). A Next Generation of Mathematics Assessments Based on Learning Trajectories. Paper presented at the Designing Technology—Enabled Diagnostic Assessments for K-12 Mathematics Conference, Raleigh.
18. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform of teaching. CPRE research report 63. New York: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University.
19. Cullen, J. B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14). Bingley: Emerald Group.
20. D’Agostino, J. V., Welsh, M. E., & Corson, N. M. (2007). Instructional sensitivity of a state’s standards-based assessment. Educational Assessment, 12(1), 1–22.
21. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). The consequences of student testing for teaching and teacher quality. In J. L. Herman & E.H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 104(2). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Distributed by Blackwell Publishing.
22. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2007). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance?. In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will no child left behind help close the poverty gap? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
23. Delandshere, G. (2002). Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1461–1484.
24. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts on ‘proximal’ formative assessment of student learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106, 186–216.
26. Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. (2006). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system?. In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14). Bingley: Emerald Group.
27. Figlio, D. N., & Winicki, J. F. (2005). Food for thought? The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Journal of Public Economics, 89(2-3), 381–394.
28. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93–104.
29. Good, T. L., Wiley, C. R., & Sabers, D. (2010). Accountability and educational reform: A critical analysis of four perspectives and considerations for enhancing reform efforts. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 138–148.
30. Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662–666.
31. Haertel, E. H., & Wiley, D. E. (1993). Representations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R. Mislevy, & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 359–384). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
32. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica: RAND.
33. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
34. Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169–207.
35. Hattie, J., & Timperely, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
36. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. . Accessed 9 May 2008.
37. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are losing an opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
38. Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment: A process of inquiry and action. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
39. Herman, J. L. (1997). Large-scale assessment in support of school reform: Lessons learned in the search for alternative measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 395–413.
40. Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to next generation assessment success. AACC report. Los Angeles: University of California.
41. Herman, J. L., & Haertel, E. H. (Eds.). (2005). Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 104(2). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Distributed by Blackwell Publishing.
42. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.
43. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.
44. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608–644.
45. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–16.
46. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.
47. Madaus, G., & Clarke, M. (1999). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: evidence from 100 years of test data. Paper presented at the High Stakes K-12 Testing Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge.
48. McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (1998). The harmful effects of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Paper presented at the High Stakes K-12 Testing Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge.
49. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Fast Facts. . Accessed 24 July 2012.
50. NRC, National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science of design and educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. NRC, National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). . Accessed 20 July 2009.
53. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20). . Accessed 20 July 2012.
54. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Education Policy Analysis: Focus on Higher Education 2005–2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.
55. Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). Rethinking and Redesigning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: What Contemporary Research and Theory Suggests. Paper commissioned by the National Center for the New Commission on the Skills of theAmerican Workforce. . Accessed 29 October 2008.
56. Phelps, R. P. (2005). The rich, robust research literature on testing’s achievement benefits. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 55–90). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57. Polikoff, M. S. (2010). Instructional sensitivity as a psychometric property of assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(4), 3–14.
58. Popham, W. J. (2006). Determining the instructional sensitivity of accountability tests. Presentation at the annual Large-Scale Assessment Conference, Council of Chief State School Officers, San Francisco.
59. Popham, W. J., Keller, T., Moulding, B., Pellegrino, J. W., & Sandifer, P. (2005). Instruction-ally supportive accountability tests in science: A viable assessment option?. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3, 121–179.
60. Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20, 54.
61. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction. Boston: Kluwer.
62. Rosenshine, B. (2003). High-stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(24), 1–8. . Accessed 20 July 2012.
63. Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. CALDER working paper 13. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
64. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 232–238.
65. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
66. Shepard, L. A. (2011). Key ideas in reforming assessment [Video file]. . Accessed 24 July 2012.
67. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). New York: Falmer.
68. Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making Sense of Test-Based Accountability in Education. Santa Monica: RAND.
69. Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland: ETS Assessment Training Institute.
70. Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 211–227.
71. United States Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. . Accessed 30 July 2012.
72. White, K. W., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2008). Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, & K. M. Borman (Eds.), No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy. New York: Routledge.
73. Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122.
74. Wong, M., Cook, T. D., & Steiner, P. M. (2009). No child left behind: An Interim evaluation of its effects on learning using two interrupted time series each with its own non-equivalent comparison series. Working Paper WP-09-11. Evanston: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.