Assessment Policy: Making Sense of the Babel

Handbook of Education Policy Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 176-190

  Herman, Joan L ^a   Baker, Eva L ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b and Student Testing   (United States)

^c National Academy of Education   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145823436     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880968-18     Document Type: Chapter

References (91)

1. Abedi, J. (2005). Issues and consequences for English language learners. In J. L. Herman & E. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data in accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.175-198). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Baker, E. L. (1997). Model-based performance assessment. Theory into Practice, 36, 247-254.
4. Baker, E. L. (2003). Multiple measures: Toward tiered systems. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 22(2), 13-17.
5. Baker, E. L. (2007a). The end(s) of testing (2007 AERA Presidential Address). Educational Researcher, 36(6), 309-317.
6. Baker, E. L. (2007b). Model-based assessments to support learning and accountability:The evolution of CRESST’s research on multiple-purpose measures. Educational Assessment, 12, 179-194.
7. Baker, E. L., Griffin, N. C., & Choi, K. (2008, April). The achievement gap in California: Context, status, and approaches for improvement. Paper prepared for the California Department of Education, P-16 Closing the Gap Research Council, Davis, CA. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://cap-ed.ucdavis.edu/sites/cap-ed.ucdavis.edu/files/BakerFINALPFD2_WEB.pdf
8. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp.47-72). New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002, Winter). Standards for educational accountability systems (CRESST Policy Brief 5). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
10. Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 522-533.
11. Baxter, G. P., Glaser, R., & Raghavan, K. (1994). Analysis of cognitive demand in selected alternative science assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. 382). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
12. Bishop, J. (2005). High school exit examinations: When do learning effects generalize? In J. L. Herman & E. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data in accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.260-288). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
13. Bjork, E. L., deWinstanley, P. A., & Storm, B. C. (2007). Learning how to learn: Can experiencing the outcome of different encoding strategies enhance subsequent encoding? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 207-211.
14. Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In C. Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree Symposium on Cognition (pp.313-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7-73.
16. Booher-Jennings, J. (2006). Rationing education in an era of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 756-761.
17. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1998, November). Tensions between competing pedagogical and accountability commitments for exemplary teachers of mathematics in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 495). Los Angeles:University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
18. Borko, H., & Stecher, B. M. (2001, April). Looking at reform through different methodological lenses: Survey and case studies of the Washington state education reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
19. Brasington, D., & Hauren, D. (2006). Educational outcomes and house values: A test of the value-added approach. Journal of Regional Science, 46, 245-268.
20. Casserly, M. (2006). Beating the odds: A city-by-city analysis of student performance and achievement gaps on state assessments: Results from the 2004-2005 school year. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
21. Center on Education Policy. (2003). State high school exit exams: Put to the test. Washington, DC: Author.
22. Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom:Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
23. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Clotfelter, T., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Diaz, R. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23, 251-271.
25. Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. (2001). Building tests to support instruction and accountability. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.nea.org/accountability/buildingtests.html
26. Firestone, W. A., Camilli, G., Yurecko, M., Monfils, L., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). State standards, socio-fiscal context and opportunity to learn in New Jersey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(35), 1068-2341.
27. Firestone, W. A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performancebased assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
28. Firestone, W. A., Schorr, R. Y., & Monfils, L. F. (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Fletcher, J. D., & Morrison, J. E. (2008). Representing cognition in games and simulations. In E. L. Baker, J. Dickieson, W. Wulfeck, & H. F. O’Neil (Eds.), Assessment of problem solving using simulations (pp.107-137). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Francis, D. J., Rivera, M. O., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners:Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Corporation.
31. Gearhart, M., Nagashima, S., Pfotenhauer, J., Clark, S., Schwab, S., Vendlinski, T. et al. (2006). Developing expertise with classroom assessment in K-12 science. Educational Assessment, 11, 237-263.
32. Goldberg, G. L., & Rosewell, B. S. (2000). From perception to practice:The impact of teachers’ scoring experience on performance based instruction and classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 6, 257-290.
33. Gordon, E. W. (1992). Implications of diversity in human characteristics for authentic assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 341). Los Angeles:University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
34. Greenleaf, C. L., Jiménez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 484-496.
35. Gross, B., & Goertz, M. E. (Eds.). (2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies (CPRE Research Report Series. RR-056). Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
36. Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
37. Hamilton, S., Stecher, B., Marsh, J. A., Sloan McCombs, J., Robyn, A., Russell, J., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
38. Herman, J. L. (2003). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp.141-166). New York: Teachers College Press.
39. Herman, J. L. (2008). Accountability and assessment: Is public interest in K-12 education being served? In K. Ryan & L. A. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp 211-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Herman, J. L., & Klein, D. C. D. (1997). Assessing opportunity to learn:A California example (CSE Rep. 453). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
41. Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices (CSE Tech. Rep. 703). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
42. Herman, J. L., Webb, N. M., & Zuniga, S. A. (2003). Alignment and college admissions: The match of expectations, assessments, and educator perspectives (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 593). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
43. Herman, J. L., Webb, N. M., & Zuniga, S. A. (2007). Measurement issues in the alignment of standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 101-126.
44. Herman, J. L., & Yamashiro, K. (2001). Exploring data use and school performance in urban public schools. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
45. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High Stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518 (1994).
47. Kane, M. T. (1994). Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores. Review of Educational Research, 64, 425-461.
48. Kane, M. T. (2001). So much remains the same: Conception and status of validation in setting standards. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods and perspectives (pp.53-88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Koretz, D. (2005). Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. In J. L. Herman & E. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data in accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.99-118). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
50. Koretz, D. & Barron, S. (1998). The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
51. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
52. Koretz, D, Linn, R. L., Dunbar, S. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1991, April). The effects of high-stakes testing on achievement: Preliminary findings about generalization across tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
53. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S., Bell, R., & Stecher, B. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992 Vermont portfolio assessment program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 355). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
54. Lane, S., Stone, C. A., Parke, C. S., Hansen, M. A., & Cerrillo, T. L. (2000, April). Consequential evidence for MSPAP from the teacher, principal, and student perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
55. Linn, R. L. (1998). Standards-based accountability: Ten suggestions (CRESST Policy Brief). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
56. Linn, R. L. (2006). Educational accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. 687). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
57. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performancebased assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 436999)
58. Markle, S. M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P. C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp.104-140). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
59. McDonnell, L. M. (1994). Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation. American Journal of Education, 102, 394-420.
60. McDonnell, L. M. (1997). The politics of state testing: Implementing new student assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. 424). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
61. McDonnell, L. M., & Choisser, C. (1997). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 442). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
62. Merriam-Webster, Inc. (1993). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). Springfield, MA: Author.
63. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: MacMillan.
64. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48).
65. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
66. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American education: A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
67. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
68. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
69. Nyquist, J. B. (2003, December). The benefits of reconstructing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment: A meta-analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
70. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
71. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 27-51.
72. Pullin, D. C. (1994). Learning to work: The impact of curriculum and assessment standards on educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 31-54.
73. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Rep. 566). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
74. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1 (pp.39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
75. Shepard, L. A. (2005). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. Paper presented at the ETS Invitational Conference, New York City.
76. Smith, M., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp.233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
77. Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 10(4), 7-11.
78. 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 (pp.79-100). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
79. Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. (1999). Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 505). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
80. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. L., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 525). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
81. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. L., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 482). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
82. Stecher, B. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2002). Putting theory to the test:Systems of “educational accountability” should be held accountable. Rand Review, 26(1), 16-23.
83. Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
84. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school improvement efforts (TASSIE): First-year findings. Washington, DC: Author.
85. Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
86. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
87. Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 7-25.
88. Webb, N. M., Herman, J. L., & Webb, N. L. (2007). Alignment of mathematics state-level standards and assessments: The role of reviewer agreement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(2), 17-29.
89. Wildavsky, A. (1993). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
90. Williams v. State of California, AB 831, § 15, EC 60119(a)(1)(A) (2005).
91. Wolf, S. A., & McIver, M. C. (1999). When process becomes policy: The paradox of Kentucky state reform for exemplary teachers of writing. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 401-406.