Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:00:28 -0400 From: Larry Rudner Subject: National Testing The fate of national testing should be determined between October 21st and 24th as the conference committee comes down with a vote. You should have a strong opinion on this one. If passed, the "voluntary" national tests promise to have a major impact on participating states. Like State NAEP, there will be a lot of pressure to sign up. I urge you to call your congressman and tell him or her what you think. Just call 202-224-3121, ask for one of your Congress people, and say "I am a constituent and I am (for | against) the "voluntary" national testing program. Most offices are keeping a tally. Go to http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/partic.htm for info on identifying your congress people and for direct phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Go to http://www.hslda.org for good info on the opposition side, http://www.ed.gov/nationaltests for info on the support side. Links to these sites and more are at http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/ft/nattest I personally am vehemently opposed to the current plan. This is not a program to help teachers and parents. Rather, it is another poorly conceived accountability program following the "kick them in the pants" philosophy. If we tell the world that teachers are doing a bad job, then theoretically, they will work harder and do better. If the Democrats really wanted to help teachers and parents, they would not have allowed states and districts to use these tests to compare districts, schools, and teachers. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Rudner Rudner#064;cua.edu ERIC Clearinghouse on http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu Assessment and Evaluation ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 06:47:51 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: National Testing I agree with Larry totally ... the fact is .. the BROADER the coverage is of a test ... the LESS useful the results will be to LOCAL teachers/parents ... in an attempt to help their kids. Besides ... don't we already have quasi national tests at different levels ... look at the large scaled standardized achievement tests .. and then there is the dreades ACTs and SATs ... >I personally am vehemently opposed to the >current plan. This is not a program to help teachers >and parents. Rather, it is another poorly >conceived accountability program following >the "kick them in the pants" philosophy. If >we tell the world that teachers are doing >a bad job, then theoretically, they will work >harder and do better. If the Democrats really >wanted to help teachers and parents, they would not >have allowed states and districts to use these tests >to compare districts, schools, and teachers. >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Larry Rudner Rudner#064;cua.edu >ERIC Clearinghouse on http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu > Assessment and Evaluation > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:37:02 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: National Testing At 08:00 AM 10/18/97 -0400, Larry wrote: >I personally am vehemently opposed to the current plan. This is not a program to help teachers and parents. Rather, it is another poorly conceived accountability program following the "kick them in the pants" philosophy. If we tell the world that teachers are doing a bad job, then theoretically, they will work harder and do better. If the Democrats really wanted to help teachers and parents, they would not have allowed states and districts to use these tests to compare districts, schools, and teachers. ******* My response: I have definitely not kept up on this one, but as I recall the tests are envisioned for 4th and 8th grades, the former focused on reading and the latter on math. I also seem to recall that 1) this would be a disclosed test; all scored items would be released each year, and 2) the contract would cost at least $200 million the first year. What I don't recall is why the dems are for it (especially Clinton) and the repubs are against it. I'm guessing the the pro argument contains phrases like "economically competitive" "technology" "jobs" "world class education" "21st century" But is there any language about a national curriculum, or the federal role in shaping curriculum and instruction? If we just want a test to monitor rather than influence learning, why not use NAEP? The con side, I would imagine, includes the religious right who are pretty much opposed to any curriculum but their own particular version, and who would favor voucher systems to achieve this end. Then there is general opposition to anything Clinton does by the repub congress. Liberals, and moderate repubs decry the potentially chilling effect on state and local control; once rankings become public, according to this view, education will be driven by fear and shame (and descend to the lowest common denominator, that is, the released items). BTW, who from the measurement community is advising the Clinton administration on this test? Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:09:11 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: National Testing One other question for listers. Has NAEP ever been subjected to a thorough independent evaluation? It seems to me that if large-scale testing programs are initiated, then the legislation must also provide for evaluation. Because of the money involved in these programs, it seems like there would be very little incentive for self-criticism. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:10:49 -0400 From: Stephen Sireci Subject: Re: National Testing Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The National Academy of Sciences is currently conducting a large evaluation of NAEP. Jim Pelligrino is the chair of the committee. I think there have also been earlier evaluations. Wasn't Lorrie Shepard involved with one for NAE? I remeber a critique of the standard setting process about four years ago. --Steve Sireci > > One other question for listers. Has NAEP ever been subjected to a thorough > independent evaluation? It seems to me that if large-scale testing > programs are initiated, then the legislation must also provide for > evaluation. Because of the money involved in these programs, it seems like > there would be very little incentive for self-criticism. > > > Gregory Camilli > Department of Educational Psychology > Graduate School of Education > Rutgers University > 10 Seminary Place > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 > fax: 732-932-6829 > > Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:05:36 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: National Testing In a message dated 97-10-18 09:49:19 EDT, you write: << > Assessment and Evaluation >> Hi! Larry, You are on the right side concerning National testing. Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:31:03 -0400 From: Larry Rudner Subject: Re: National Testing >BTW, who from the measurement community is advising the Clinton >administration on this test? Clinton's top advisors on this one are Mike Cohen and Mike Smith. Gary Phillips is spearheading the test development effort. The item quality/norms promise to be top notch. There has been a great deal of input from the measurement community via commissioned papers and several public meetings. 8th grade reading will follow NAEP, 8th grade math will follow TIMMS. Congressman Goodling has criticized the 8th grade test since it will be heavily algebra and reportedly only 20% of American students have studied that content by 8th grade. -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Rudner rudner#064;cua.edu ERIC Clearinghouse on 800 464-3742 (800 Go4-ERIC) Assessment and Evaluation 202 319-5120 Catholic University of America FAX: 202 319-6692 Washington, DC 20064 http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:02:57 -0400 From: George Cunningham Subject: Re: National Testing At 08:00 AM 10/18/97 -0400, Larry Rudner wrote: >The fate of national testing should be determined >between October 21st and 24th as the conference >committee comes down with a vote. > >I personally am vehemently opposed to the >current plan. This is not a program to help teachers >and parents. Rather, it is another poorly >conceived accountability program following >the "kick them in the pants" philosophy. If >we tell the world that teachers are doing >a bad job, then theoretically, they will work >harder and do better. If the Democrats really >wanted to help teachers and parents, they would not >have allowed states and districts to use these tests >to compare districts, schools, and teachers. The idea of testing all fourth graders in reading and all eighth grade students in math is intriguing. Over the years, the technology for conducting such an assessment has been highly developed by the standardized test industry. It may not be an exaggeration to say that these are the areas, in all of measurement, for which present technology permits the most accurate assessment. The psychometrist in me is attracted to this idea for the sheer magnitude and challenge of it. Unfortunately, the committee appointed to begin planning for this test apparently has no intention of utilizing the knowledge of assessment accrued over all of these years. They instead intend to adopt the Kentucky model for conducting such an assessment which is not surprising since the chair of the committee is the Commissioner of Education for Kentucky, Wilmer Cody. The Kentucky assessment has proven to be a disaster. By law it is supposed to be performance based, but two years ago the performance assessment part of the test was eliminated when it was determined that tasks from year to year could not be equated. The assessment now consists of ordinary essay questions and a writng portfolio. The contractor for the test, Advanced Systems in Measurement and Evaluation (ASME) was fired because of massive errors in scoring the botched performance assessment. Lawrence Picus, a leading finance expert has determined that the Kentucky test costs between $120 and $254 million per year and between $848 and $1,791 per student tested. How can the national test be done for $200 million when the costs of such an assessment are so high for a small state like Kentucky. How many fourth graders are there in the U.S. and how many graders will it take to evaluate their essay responses? How long will it take a grader to assess one essay answer with the imperfect handwriting of the typical fourth grader? The numbers you come up with are astounding and $200 million wouldn't touch it. Instead of scaled scores and norm referenced assessment the proposed national test is to use absolute standards. There is really no way to establish standards for a reading test and then select items of the perfect difficulty. Equating becomes crucially important for such a test. Equating tests from year to year is difficult under the best of circumstances and normally relies on the administration of some of the same items from year to year. On the proposed test all of the questions will be published making equating almost impossible. Regardless of intent, such a test will take on very high stakes. The jobs of superintendents, principals and teachers will hang in the balance. Newspapers will be trumpeting the winners and losers. There will be incredible pressure to obtain high test scores. This will necessitate extraordinary test security measures. Consider the extent and expense of security for the SAT and ACT. Outside administrators will have to be used, the test will have to be administered at the same time across the country, so separate monitors and test administrators will need to be hired for each school. It will not be possible to hire and train teams of test administrators and have them go around administering the test. Then there is the time difference between the two coasts. If the test is not administered simultaneously there is the risk that information will flow over e-mail and telephones regarding test content. Such an ambitious testing programs presents overwhelming logistical problems using the best of methodology, but under the present leadership failed techniques are being proposed. I don't see how it could ever work. George K. Cunningham University of Louisville ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 13:31:28 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: National Testing Hi. NAPE started in the 60's with the plaintive cry that there was not enough money available to them to verify the method used to collect data. The fact that there is no feedback to students, along with the doubtful us of matrix sampleing, makes the findings of little use. The only thing they have done right is to look around the edges of the Rasch model. Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 07:53:40 -0400 From: Larry Rudner Subject: Re: National Testing X-cc: k12assess-l#064;lists.cua.edu, aera-d#064;asu.edu >Larry's use of "voluntary" was a sure sign of his opinion. > The tests are voluntary in the sense that no federal funds will be tied to test results. Once a state or district adopts the test, it will not necessarily be voluntary. The term voluntary here does not mean parents or teachers will be able to choose. It is voluntary for the states and districts. It is my opinion that the use of the term voluntary can be misleading. Hence I put it in quotes. >Can anyone give us an update on the issue of national testing without >the editoralizing (no offense to Larry), but I'd like to decide what to >think based on the facts and not be told what to think. I still haven't >formulated my opinion. I am not offended. This is such an important issue, I think all educators should form an opinion and let congress know. We tried to present both sides and post links to both sides at http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/ft/nattest There are lots of straight facts at the oeri site http://www.ed.gov/nationaltests Bear (non-editorial) facts: 4th grade reading based on NAEP, 8th grade math based on TIMMS. Feds want to pay for the development, local administration and scoring of the tests. About $13M given to AIR and several publishers to write items based on a modified blueprint developed by MPR. Contract suspended until Congress decides. New tests to be developed each year. Items to be released after each administration. Procedures will be developed to assure proper test use. Licenses will be issued to states, districts, and I think commercial publishers wanting to incorporate the national test in their testing programs. The national tests will be available to states and districts as another option, just like the current commercial tests are an option. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Rudner rudner#064;cua.edu ERIC Clearinghouse on 800 464-3742 (800 Go4-ERIC) Assessment and Evaluation 202 319-5120 Catholic University of America FAX: 202 319-6692 Washington, DC 20064 http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 08:06:54 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: National Testing I would suggest that the fact that there is a challenge ... to be conquered ... is NOT adequate ... nor sufficient .. reason to do this ... it can be done, but should it? THAT is the real question. >The idea of testing all fourth graders in reading and all eighth grade >students in math is intriguing. Over the years, the technology for >conducting such an assessment has been highly developed by the standardized >test industry. It may not be an exaggeration to say that these are the >areas, in all of measurement, for which present technology permits the most >accurate assessment. The psychometrist in me is attracted to this idea for >the sheer magnitude and challenge of it. > ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002 Website: http://www2.ed.psu.edu/espse/staff/droberts/drober~1.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:20:00 -0400 From: Danette McKinley Subject: Re: National Testing Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well...this is my understanding of the issues: 1) NAEP tests only a sample of the country, while this new "national" test would include every student 2) Those measurement professionals involved in NAEP would be the "central core" of this new initiative 3) This effort is necessary to provide parents and teachers with information about how their students are doing compared with the rest of the nation. NAEP results are provided only to governors, and that means full disclosure of the information is not taking place 4) The Republicans are saying that this is the Dems way of distracting us from the real issues - school choice & vouchers Now, mind you, I don't necessarily agree with any of the rhetoric that appears above. I'm just repeating what I've heard. I have strong objections to this particular idea of "national testing", and wonder why the proponents think we need something above and beyond NAEP. As an African-American, I am concerned that this won't provide additional statistical evidence of the "inferiority" of urban, African-American students in public school systems (ala "the Bell Curve"). Frankly, with $200 million dollars and information from the existing national assessment (NAEP), we could probably implement some serious improvement to education in this country. Of course, that probably won't sit well with the politicians... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:31:18 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Re[2]: National Testing Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As part of the test development team, I am glad to see discussion of the Voluntary National Tests (VNT). Since the debate has been rather one-sided I felt it necessary to respond to some of the questions I've seen. (1) Will the tests be based upon Kentucky's assessment program? Will they be performance-based? The plan is for the VNT to be based on the NAEP frameworks for Reading and Mathematics, not on any one state testing framework. These frameworks have been developed through a broad national consensus. The nation's foremost experts in assessment have been involved with NAEP and with the VNT, and are well aware of the long history of testing in this country. Since TIMSS is closely aligned with NAEP, we will have the ability to statistically link the VNT in Math with both NAEP and TIMSS. These linking activities will allow parents to see how their child's performance compares with national and international standards. The actual items have not been developed yet, and will not be developed until the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) approves the frameworks and test specifications. Any rumors about the test items themselves are without merit because they simply don't exist yet. (2) What about local control? Won't these tests lead to a national curriculum? The goal of these tests is to enhance local control rather than to take it away. Claims that the federal government is interested in developing a national curriculum are unfounded. The federal government believes that education is a state responsibility and a local function. The federal government will not require states or districts to participate. No federal funding will be contingent upon participation. If a state decides to use the VNT framework to develop curricula, that is their choice. (3) How is the VNT different from other tests? The VNT was proposed as a way to provide individual level information to parents and students. NAEP does not, and cannot (because of matrix sampling), provide individual level scores. In addition, students who take the VNT will receive more information than they currently receive from the usual standardized tests. For instance, in addition to their scores, they will get to see the actual test items, and explanations about the items they get wrong. The current plan is to also include questions for parents to ask their child's teachers as a way of helping parents to get involved in education. (4) Will the tests lead to inappropriate and unfair comparisons? The VNT will be rigorously pilot tested and field tested, and will undergo numerous bias reviews and cognitive lab testing in order to ensure that the tests and items are as fair as possible. Accommodations will be provided to students with limited English proficiency and disabilities. In addition, the test developer will provide states with guidance about valid and appropriate uses of the tests, based on special validity studies that are planned. While the government cannot dictate how states will use the tests (again, ensuring local control), it will take a responsible role in preventing the misuse of tests. For example, states will be made aware that the tests should not be used for grade retention if it has not been validated for that purpose. (5) Who supports the VNT? This initiative has received bipartisan support from states, cities, business leaders, and educational organizations (including the National Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, National Alliance of Business, 240 high-tech CEO's, Council of Chief State School Officers, National School Boards Association, Council of Great City Schools, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Council for Expectional Children, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education), to name just a few. In fact, Republicans and President Bush supported the development of national tests during his administration. In addition, there is widespread support among the American public, according to a recent Phi Delta Kappa poll. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the VNT. I have tried to answer (as objectively as possible) some of the most common questions I have seen. Of course, these responses are my own, and I am not an official representative of the federal government. For objective and detailed VNT meeting minutes and descriptions of test planning activities to date, please refer to the government's official VNT website at: http://www.ed.gov/nationaltests _____________________________________________ Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:27:55 -0400 From: Leonard Bliss Subject: Re: National Testing At 09:20 AM 10/20/97 -0400, you wrote: > Well...this is my understanding of the issues: > -Whole mess of stuff clipped- > 3) This effort is necessary to provide parents and teachers with > information about how their students are doing compared with the rest of > the nation. -Whole mess of stuff clipped- Danette, I think your objections to national testing make a whole lot of sense. Yes, the portion of your issue #3 above is one of the reasons proponents are advancing for this program. My queston is, "Why would they want to do that??!!" I don't really care how my child is doing "compared to the rest of the nation." I want to know what my child can do. I am asking, in other words, for what we used to call (some of us still do call it) a criterion referenced interpretation of performance. Why must we have this great need to compare and, therefore, compete? Captialism, I guess! Len Leonard B. Bliss, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Leadership and Educational Studies Reich College of Education Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA blisslb#064;conrad.appstate.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:31:00 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: National Testing At 09:20 AM 10/20/97 -0400, you wrote: > Well...this is my understanding of the issues: > > 1) NAEP tests only a sample of the country, while this new "national" > test would include every student of course .. if the main objective is to see how the country is doing .. then only a sample is needed. however, if you want to be able to compare YOUR kid to the norm ... he/she has to take SOME kind of comparable test ... but it does not have to be the one that the norms are on IF some equating study has been made .. between the normed test and other similar things .. > > 2) Those measurement professionals involved in NAEP would be the "central > core" of this new initiative > > 3) This effort is necessary to provide parents and teachers with > information about how their students are doing compared with the rest of > the nation. NAEP results are provided only to governors, and that means > full disclosure of the information is not taking place but you can be sure that it does NOT simply sit on the governor's desk .. he/she doesn't have time to deal with it .. so it would be passed on to some other person who would be expected to deal with it ... > > 4) The Republicans are saying that this is the Dems way of distracting us > from the real issues - school choice & vouchers > could be true ... the real issue is ... if the major reason why such a testing program is being proposed ... is to better enable local teachers/schools help their students ... then one does NOT need a national testing program to do that ... ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002 Website: http://www2.ed.psu.edu/espse/staff/droberts/drober~1.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:47:20 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing At 10:31 AM 10/20/97 -0500, Christine Andrews Paulsen wrote: > Since TIMSS is closely aligned with NAEP, we > will have the ability to statistically link the VNT in Math with both > NAEP and TIMSS. These linking activities will allow parents to see > how their child's performance compares with national and international > standards. > What is the official line on why this is important? If test publishers can link their tests to NAEP, and NAEP is linked to TIMSS, why not let the provate sector take care of providing information to school dostrict that choose to test? > What about local control? Won't these tests lead to a national > curriculum? > > The goal of these tests is to enhance local control rather than to > take it away. Claims that the federal government is interested in > developing a national curriculum are unfounded. The federal > government believes that education is a state responsibility and a > local function. The federal government will not require states or > districts to participate. No federal funding will be contingent upon > participation. If a state decides to use the VNT framework to develop > curricula, that is their choice. > The question of whether the fed wants to develop a national curriculum is not the issue, rather, the it is whether the existence of a national test (and especially the test specifications and associated materials) will reshape local curricula. What incentive do schools have to change based on reported test results? I think everyone knows the answer to this question. For the sake of argument we might consider 1. embarrasment in local & state papers 2. loss of public school students to charter and provate schools 3. use of cheap instructional materials that, no doubt, have publishers eagerly anticipating the national test 4. parent pressure > In addition, students who > take the VNT will receive more information than they currently receive > from the usual standardized tests. For instance, in addition to their > scores, they will get to see the actual test items, and explanations > about the items they get wrong. > In New Jersey, we just moved away from the model where test items are released. It was widely considered to be the case that once items become public, they become the focus of instruction -- especially for students who do not do well on the test. Has there been any discussion of these points regarding the proposed tests? > > Will the tests lead to inappropriate and unfair comparisons? > > In addition, the test developer will provide states with guidance > about valid and appropriate uses of the tests, based on special > validity studies that are planned. While the government cannot > dictate how states will use the tests (again, ensuring local control), > it will take a responsible role in preventing the misuse of tests. > For example, states will be made aware that the tests should not be > used for grade retention if it has not been validated for that > purpose. > Please! Guidelines for appropriate use have little effect on the use of test scores as indicators of quality. Consider the SAT: how many articles have been written regarding the inappropriate use for comparing states? BTW, who is the test developer? > > (5) Who supports the VNT? > > This initiative has received bipartisan support from states, cities, > business leaders, and educational organizations (including the > National Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, National > Alliance of Business, 240 high-tech CEO's, Council of Chief State > School Officers, National School Boards Association, Council of Great > City Schools, National Association of Elementary School Principals, > Council for Expectional Children, National Education Association, > American Federation of Teachers, and the National Association of State > Directors of Special Education), to name just a few. In fact, > Republicans and President Bush supported the development of national > tests during his administration. In addition, there is widespread > support among the American public, according to a recent Phi Delta > Kappa poll. > This is pretty impressive list. I wonder what the reason for support is among our business leaders and if they are the same as those for the NEA. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:22:00 -0400 From: Danette McKinley Subject: Re: National Testing Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I didn't necessarily agree with the points made - just thought that if I misunderstood any of them, AERA-D would let me know. Also, I agree that the real issue should be school improvement. Unfortunately, I think this latest proposal is a way to waste a couple hundred million dollars. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:38:08 -0400 From: Larry Rudner Subject: National Tests Since my original post on Saturday, several people have told me of additional quality web resources concerning the proposed voluntary national tests: http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/ctestweb/voluntary/vnt.html has lots of newspaper clippings http://www.ets.org/research/pic/jones.html has a thoughtful presentation from ETS's William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/testing/testing.htm is a special section of the Washington Post (very much in favor) http://www.house.gov/eeo/testindex.htm from Congress tracks bills and highlights Congressman Goodlings view (very much against) Happy reading and don't forget to call 202-224-3121 to register your opinion (I had to plug calling again). Links to these and others are at http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/ft/nattest/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Rudner rudner#064;cua.edu ERIC Clearinghouse on 800 464-3742 (800 Go4-ERIC) Assessment and Evaluation 202 319-5120 Catholic University of America FAX: 202 319-6692 Washington, DC 20064 http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:07:34 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Voluntary National Testing Initiative Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some follow-up on questions about the Voluntary National Tests. I apologize in advance for the length of this posting... Question: Since the test is voluntary not all states and many school districts will choose not to participate. How comparable will this "national" data be for comparison purposes? Answer: Before the VNT is made available for operational testing by states, a field test will be administered to a national probability sample. This sample will provide the basis for comparison on the operational test. The current plan is for the tests to be re-normed each year. Thus, it will not matter which states or districts volunteer to participate in the operational years because comparisons will be based on the norming sample. Question: Because of Federal Title 1 mandates, States and school district's must adopt assessment systems. Maybe what should be done is to improve what already exists rather than add on another layer. Answer: Some states may choose to rely on their own assessments, but other states have not yet developed assessments. The VNT will provide states with valid assessments that help them meet the Title I assessment mandate without spending their own money to develop a whole new test. In other cases, some states have expressed interest in using the VNT to validate the tests that they already have. Thus, states have a variety of reasons for wanting to use the VNT. It's their choice. Question: (I) wonder why the proponents think we need something above and beyond NAEP. As an African-American, I am concerned that this won't provide additional statistical evidence of the "inferiority" of urban, African-American students in public school systems (ala "the Bell Curve"). Answer: NAEP only allows for the comparison of states. It is not possible (legally) to disaggregate the data to the district or school level. With NAEP, parents cannot get information about how well their individual child is performing. Such state level data is useful for federal policymakers, but does not provide district-level policymakers and educational agencies with information about how well their students are performing based on high standards. Rather than pointing to inferiority among specific groups, the VNT has the potential to help districts and states to direct resources and capacity-building to the schools that need the most help. We recognize the potential for misuse of the tests and place a high priority on preventing such misuses. Question: Guidelines for appropriate use have little effect on the use of test scores as indicators of quality. Consider the SAT: how many articles have been written regarding the inappropriate use for comparing states? Once institutionalized after a few years the test WILL be used for a multitude of "unintended" and probably political purposes. Maybe I'm being too cynical but these "innovations" have usually turned into something other than the original intentions they were purported to be. Answer: I agree that there are people who use tests for inappropriate purposes. But, if we stopped making tests for that reason we would be left with no tests. We recognize the importance of preventing such abuses. This continues to be a major issue for discussion among the test development team. Question: The question of whether the fed wants to develop a national curriculum is not the issue, rather, the it is whether the existence of a national test (and especially the test specifications and associated materials) will reshape local curricula. What incentive do schools have to change based on reported test results? I think everyone knows the answer to this question. For the sake of argument we might consider 1. embarrasment in local & state papers 2. loss of public school students to charter and provate schools 3. use of cheap instructional materials that, no doubt, have publishers eagerly anticipating the national test 4. parent pressure Answer: Some districts have asked for help in re-shaping their curricula to strive for higher standards. I don't find the prospect of re-shaping curricula troubling if the standards that drive the modifications are of a high-quality nature. This reminds me of the "teaching to the test" argument. Teaching to a high-quality test, and expecting high achievement is an important step in encouraging learning. Question: In New Jersey, we just moved away from the model where test items are released. It was widely considered to be the case that once items become public, they become the focus of instruction -- especially for students who do not do well on the test. Has there been any discussion of these points regarding the proposed tests? Answer: The current plan is to release items to encourage students to practice, and to help teachers prepare students. The plan is for the tests to cover the essentials in reading and mathematics. Teaching to the test, in this case, means teaching students to master the essentials in reading and math! Question: BTW, who is the test developer? Answer: The test development team includes: The American Institutes for Research, Riverside Publishing, Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, California Test Bureau/McGraw Hill, Council for Basic Education, Educational Testing Service, Westat, and National Computer Systems. Question: I wonder what the reason for support is among our business leaders and if they are the same as those for the NEA. Answer: One of the reasons the business community supports the tests is because they are increasingly concerned with our performance as a nation in our global economy. They have a huge stake in improving our schools and they see their involvement in education as a real investment. _______________________________________________ Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:03:28 -0400 From: Michael Scriven Subject: Re: National Testing Greg Camilli wanted to know if NAEP has been evaluated. The first implicit evaluation was done by its own technical advisory committee during round 1, which was math at grades 4, 8, and 11. It was critical. It was fired (by the National Assessment Governing Board). The second, which overlapped the first (going on long past the above event), was done by Stufflebeam, Jaeger, and Scriven, at the request of NAEP. The draft report was (mildly) critical. This group was immediately fired by the NAGB, presumably to prevent the report being finalized and circulated. However, someone (none of us) leaked the report to Congress and fur began to fly. Eventually, GAO was asked to do its own evaluation. It did, and in response to an explicit question from the Congress, as to whether it agreed with S, J, and S, it replied that it did. Congress was not amused at NAEP firing the evaluators they had hired just because of mild criticism. We never received an apology (or the final payment on the contract). Here endeth Lesson 465 in the Book of Hard-Won Lessons that every evaluator keeps under his/her pillow. Michael Scriven PS The current NAGB is not the identical board it was before; but how different it is, remains to be seen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:06:10 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: National Testing In a message dated 97-10-19 11:08:02 EDT, you write: << done, but should it? THAT is the real question. >The idea of testing all fourth graders in reading and all eighth grade >students in math is intriguing. Over the years, the technology for >conducting such an assessment has been highly developed by the standardized >test industry. It may not be an exaggeration to say that these are the >areas, in all of measurement, for which present technology permits the most >accurate assessment. The psychometrist in me is attracted to this idea for >the sheer magnitude and challenge of it. > ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002 Website: http://www2.ed.psu.edu/espse/staff/droberts/drober~1.htm Hi! Dennis, The IDEA of measuring is ok, but two conditions must be met. Feedback to the ones tested and adherence to goals in district presentation sequence. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Received: from mrin59.mail.aol.com (mrin59.mail.aol.com [152.163.116.97]) by air07.mail.aol.com (v34) with SMTP; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:08:02 -0400 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [206.241.12. >> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:26:41 -0700 From: Art Burke Subject: Re: National Testing What constitutes a "thorough independent evaluation?" Anyhow, see the CRESST site: http://cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/reports.htm Art ************************************************************************** * Art Burke * * Office Of Accountability And Research phone: 360 696 7208 * * Vancouver Public Schools FAX: 360 737 7388 * * PO Box 8937 * * Vancouver WA 98668-8937 e-mail: aburke#064;vannet.k12.wa.us * * USA * ************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, Gregory Camilli wrote: > One other question for listers. Has NAEP ever been subjected to a thorough > independent evaluation? It seems to me that if large-scale testing > programs are initiated, then the legislation must also provide for > evaluation. Because of the money involved in these programs, it seems like > there would be very little incentive for self-criticism. > > > Gregory Camilli > Department of Educational Psychology > Graduate School of Education > Rutgers University > 10 Seminary Place > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 > fax: 732-932-6829 > > Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:55:44 -0500 From: Jim Angermeyr Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing > The goal of these tests is to enhance local control rather than to > take it away. Claims that the federal government is interested in > developing a national curriculum are unfounded. The federal > government believes that education is a state responsibility and a > local function. The federal government will not require states or > districts to participate. No federal funding will be contingent upon > participation. If a state decides to use the VNT framework to develop > curricula, that is their choice. The problem, of course, is that there will be tremendous pressure to "volunteer". Which state's governor will risk the political fallout of avoiding a test that would "tell us how our kids compare to the world"? Which superintendent could risk the same if a state decides to make the tests "voluntary" at the district level? In Minnesota, we recently had a state test which was optional at grade 8. Since most of the districts elected to use it, the few who chose not to were severely criticized in the press for trying to hide something. Suddenly, the optional state test becomes a required test. Who believes that the same would not happen with a federal test? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:12:17 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative Christine Paulson does some Q & A on national testing. I note that Christine seems to be an advocate whereas some of us seem to be skeptical. Some specific comments I have are: > Before the VNT is made available for operational testing by states, a field > test will be administered to a national probability sample. This sample will > provide the basis for comparison on the operational test. The current plan is > for the tests to be re-normed each year. Thus, it will not matter which states > or districts volunteer to participate in the operational years because > comparisons will be based on the norming sample. > A national probability sample will apparently be used to establish a baseline scale, and scores will be linked to this scale. Sounds good, but how do you mandate participation in the national sample? Without a defensible sample, all ensuing comparisons would be flawed. > Answer: > Some states may choose to rely on their own assessments, but other states have > not yet developed assessments. The VNT will provide states with valid > assessments that help them meet the Title I assessment mandate without spending > their own money to develop a whole new test. In other cases, some states have > expressed interest in using the VNT to validate the tests that they already > have. Thus, states have a variety of reasons for wanting to use the VNT. It's > their choice. > I now see one hook: the fed will provide for free testing for Title 1. The idea that VNT will be used to "validate" other tests demonstates the subtle encroachment of a national test on local practices. > NAEP only allows for the comparison of states. It is not possible (legally) to > disaggregate the data to the district or school level. With NAEP, parents > cannot get information about how well their individual child is performing. > Such state level data is useful for federal policymakers, but does not provide > district-level policymakers and educational agencies with information about how > well their students are performing based on high standards. Rather than > pointing to inferiority among specific groups, the VNT has the potential to > help districts and states to direct resources and capacity-building to the > schools that need the most help. We recognize the potential for misuse of the > tests and place a high priority on preventing such misuses. > I see, the VNT is going to be used as a policy tool -- a free policy tool. It will help you determine where your students are on the national high standards. Resources and capacity-building will be enhanced with the new test. Apparently, local district can't do this now; give them the right test data though, and mechanisms will magically appear. To me, this is the failed experiment of systemic reform in education, and the federal government appears to be the last bastion of top-down reform. Unfortunately, this intent is blurred with the language of "voluntarism." The fed supplies the information and standards, and you take the initiative -- based on your own values -- of how to change. Not only is this the troubled argument of systemic reform, but it also sounds much like supply-side economics. > I agree that there are people who use tests for inappropriate purposes. But, > if we stopped making tests for that reason we would be left with no tests. We > recognize the importance of preventing such abuses. This continues to be a > major issue for discussion among the test development team. > "Recognizing" is not enough. Publishing explanatory material is not enough. The very purpose of the test appears to be to order and rank. It is fanciful to think that users will limit comparisons to the baseline benchmarks. A test that promotes competition is inherently disposed for misuse. Only if the potential benefits of the test outweigh the potential negative consequences should be consider adopting the test. This is why I asked earlier in regard to your remark >> Since TIMSS is closely aligned with NAEP, we >> will have the ability to statistically link the VNT in Math with both >> NAEP and TIMSS. These linking activities will allow parents to see >> how their child's performance compares with national and international >> standards. >> >What is the official line on why this is important? Let me add another question: do you have any evidence that providing such information leads to improved educational outcomes? Polls can't be used to collect this information on validity. >Some districts have asked for help in re-shaping their curricula to strive >for higher standards. I don't find the prospect of re-shaping curricula >troubling if the standards that drive the modifications are of a >high-quality nature. This reminds me of the "teaching to the test" >argument. Teaching to a high-quality test, and expecting high achievement >is an important step in encouraging learning. > I see. You have no problem with promoting a national curriculum if the standards are of high quality. Your argument is that the fed has a legitimate role in encouraging learning, and if the VNT does narrow curricula to the national test specifications, this is good. I'm quite appalled with this argument; it assumes you know what students need better than those closer to the school (including the state). > >The current plan is to release items to encourage students to practice, and >to help teachers prepare students. The plan is for the tests to cover the >essentials in reading and mathematics. Teaching to the test, in this case, >means teaching students to master the essentials in reading and math! > Yes, and you've defined the essentials. Moreover, if schools pull students out of regular classes to drill them on the essentials (which are alternatively called high standards), so much the better! What I find lacking in this argument is any critical facility for ordering potentially harmful consequences of high stakes testing. The literature is filled with horror stories, yet the fed still believes that testing encourages learning. >The test development team includes: The American Institutes for Research, >Riverside Publishing, Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, California >Test Bureau/McGraw Hill, Council for Basic Education, Educational Testing >Service, Westat, and National Computer Systems. > It must be noted that these companies are going to make a bundle of money for the forseeable future (if the test makes it through congress). >One of the reasons the business community supports the tests is because >they are increasingly concerned with our performance as a nation in our >global economy. They have a huge stake in improving our schools and they >see their involvement in education as a real investment. > I don't think evidence makes a lot of difference sometimes. You can point to the stock US market, US competitiveness, US productivity, but business is telling us that we risk economic competitveness. Nevermind that the correlation of economic competitiveness and TIMSS 8th grdae math score (country as a unit) was r=.09. Nevermind massive layoffs of highly educated, technically competent staff at ATT, IBM, GM, and so on. Nevermind that universities are turning out more higher degrees in science and math than the workforce can absorb (and the fed appears to have abetted this problem). Nevermind that 40% of OSU business graduates in 1993 could not find a job. Business has a huge stake, but few business leaders state the truth in public: policies regarding taxes, trade, and research and development play the major role in economic competitiveness. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:46:02 -0700 From: George Cunningham Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative At 04:07 PM 10/20/97 -0500, Christine Andrews Paulsen wrote: > Some follow-up on questions about the Voluntary National Tests. I apologize in > advance for the length of this posting... I have a couple questions. The history of large scale testing tells us that despite intentions, this is going end up being a very high stakes test. Who is going to administer it? The classroom teachers who will ultimately be evaluated by it? If not, will outside examiners be used. Given the need to prevent teachers communicating test content, will all students take the test at the same time? If they do, how many examiners will be needed? Who is going to grade the tens of millions of essay items? George K. Cunningham University of Louisville ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:45:07 -0400 From: "Deanna M. De'Liberto" Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative George K. Cunningham asks many very good questions in regard to national testing. These are the very same questions my company and many of the test publishers have with respect to this issue. Unfortunately, I must honestly answer these questions by saying that nothing has yet been decided with respect to these implentation issues. I had attended a meeting in May with the US Dept of Education and various test publishers to discuss the proposal for a liscensing/management contractor to oversee and certify companies and local and state education authorities who might be involved in the administration, scoring, and reporting (of scores) of the National Test. Since then, this proposal has changed in favor of a new concept of which nothing much is known. I do know that they are trying to balance the need to maintain test security (which everyone agrees is an important issue) with the local education authotities neeed for flexibility in the administration of these tests. The Mathematics Test Committee had considered these issues and it seemed at the time of their recommendation that they were in favor of teachers or school administrators administering the test but could not decide whether the test would be administered in math class by the math teacher for that class, during math class by a different math teacher, or by teacher from a different discipline during the same time period. Also debated was whether it should be administered on the same day or withing window of test dates. I agree that this test will become a high stakes assessment and will be required by states and local education authorities. Much pressure will be put on teachers to get their students to do well and consequently we should expect a high degree of improprieties (which is true of most high stakes assessments). I am glad to see that others share my concerns. If these issues are not resolved satisfactorily, it will not matter how statistically reliable and valid the items or test is--the test will not be valid if it is not administered properly and uniformly. Test security and test administration must be discussed as it is parmount to ensuring that the test meets its intended purpose. I would be interested in knowing if anyone has any additional information on this issue. I would also be willing to serve in an advisroy capacity on such issues if we can make a good case to those in authority.. Regards, Deanna M. De'Liberto D SQUARED ASSESSMENTS, INC. (Specialists in Test Development/Validation and Test Administration) Hazlet, NJ Tel: (732) 888-9339 Email: Ddeliberto#064;aol.com Member of the Association of Test Publishers In a message dated 97-10-20 18:48:00 EDT, gkcunn01#064;ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU writes: << I have a couple questions. The history of large scale testing tells us that despite intentions, this is going end up being a very high stakes test. Who is going to administer it? The classroom teachers who will ultimately be evaluated by it? If not, will outside examiners be used. Given the need to prevent teachers communicating test content, will all students take the test at the same time? If they do, how many examiners will be needed? Who is going to grade the tens of millions of essay items? George K. Cunningham University of Louisville >> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:41:06 -0400 From: "Deanna M. De'Liberto" Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative In a message dated 97-10-20 16:09:08 EDT, cpaulsen#064;AIR-DC.ORG writes: << Question: BTW, who is the test developer? Answer: The test development team includes: The American Institutes for Research, Riverside Publishing, Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, California Test Bureau/McGraw Hill, Council for Basic Education, Educational Testing Service, Westat, and National Computer Systems. >> To elaborate on the above: Riverside Publishing is the test developer for reading Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement is the test developer for mathematics CTB/McGraw-Hill and National Computer Systems will socre these assessments Educational Testing Service is responsible for the research reports Westat is responsible for administering the pilots and field tests Deanna M. De'Liberto D SQUARED ASSESSMENTS, INC. (Specialists in Test Development/Validation and Test Administration) Hazlet, NJ (732) 888-9339 Ddeliberto#064;aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:23:41 +0000 From: "W. H. Castine" Organization: FAMU Subject: Re: National Testing x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Scriven wrote: > Greg Camilli wanted to know if NAEP has been evaluated. > > The first implicit evaluation was done by its own technical advisory > committee during round 1, which was math at grades 4, 8, and 11. It > was > critical. It was fired (by the National Assessment Governing Board). > > The second, which overlapped the first (going on long past the above > event), > was done by Stufflebeam, Jaeger, and Scriven, at the request of NAEP. > The > draft report was (mildly) critical. This group was immediately fired > by the > NAGB.... > Here endeth Lesson 465 in the Book of Hard-Won Lessons that every > evaluator > keeps under his/her pillow. > In response to this and all the other positions visited via AERA-D, I raise one burning question: Have you read either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand? If you care to visit (or revisit) these masterworks, perhaps some additional questions concerning the VNT will be obviated. Bill Castine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:16:41 -0400 From: Larry Rudner Subject: Re: National Testing >In response to this and all the other positions visited via AERA-D, I >raise one burning question: Have you read either Atlas Shrugged or The >Fountainhead by Ayn Rand? If you care to visit (or revisit) these >masterworks, perhaps some additional questions concerning the VNT will >be obviated. > What are the points raised in these masterworks? -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Rudner rudner#064;cua.edu ERIC Clearinghouse on 800 464-3742 (800 Go4-ERIC) Assessment and Evaluation 202 319-5120 Catholic University of America FAX: 202 319-6692 Washington, DC 20064 http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:34:26 +0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Craig Howley Subject: National Tests Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 10/21/97 As a researcher, I applaud most efforts to develop reresentative data on students' learning--but only to the extent they enable critical research. As a parent, or grandparent, and citizen with a stake in education for the common good, however, I despair of all these efforts. What naivete compels us to believe these tests 'provide feedback' to the public? Parents are not knowledgeably prepared to interpret tests, not just test results, (especially NAEP-like tests!), nor should any of us educationists reasonably expect them to be. But the rhetoric of "parents need them" suggests we do hold those expectations. That's interesting. And I expect that, like the endorsement that opens this message, the interest is mostly self-interest. The public reportedly wants national tests. We don't know why, but I'd suspect it has a lot to do with insecurity about the futures for their/our kids. But, again, most citizens can neither interpret test scores (something they have in common with most educators, in fact) nor the (unmentionabl) sociology behind the scores. The emphasis on 'accountability' mostly tells those in the know what they already know: overall, it's the affluent who have the 'best' (high-achievement) schools. Those in the know know something else, too: publishing the values of the dependent variable isn't going to influence the independent variables. We would't want to do that, not here in North America anyhow. --Craig Howley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:31:08 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: National Tests H! Anyone interested in national tests, The real question (not political) is fairnes to students. It is evident from research done in the Portland School District that any score at thirty percent of less of the Raw score ( a conservative percentage ) should be excluded from any report or group analysis. These students need to be retested with an easier test ON THE SAME VARIABLE, not just a grade lower test. The top students that get most of the questions right, and this has not been experimented with, should also be retested to find out how much they know or can do. Giving the same test ot all students in a grade is a sure way to be unfair to most of the stidents in the grade simply because you are giving them a test that does not let them show what they can accomplish. Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:01:39 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Re[2]: National Testing X-cc: k12assess-l#064;lists.cua.edu, aera-d#064;asu.edu Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This is a very important concern. The current plan is to conduct focus groups with parents, teachers, students, and anyone else who is interested to develop a reporting format that will make sense to most people in a way that they will find useful. Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: National Testing Author: Jim White at ~internet Date: 10/21/97 4:18 PM Jim I've been trying to understand the information provided by standardized tests at the local level for a number of years. The information tests provide is not intended for the audiences which consume it. There is not a national audience which can appropriately understand this information. In each school district I will guess that there is a handful of folks who understand how these tests are designed and what the results mean. Do you believe that imposing an incomprehensible system of evaluation on the majority is in their best interest? Sorry about the opinion but I have personally seen the "Standardized Testing Monster" rear its ugly head and devour many reform initiatives because educators work themselves into a frenzy over a measurement system which does little more than state the obvious at a sinfully high cost. Jim White ----Original Message Follows---- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 10:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: James Purpura Subject: Re: National Testing To: Larry Rudner Cc: k12assess-l#064;lists.cua.edu, aera-d#064;asu.edu I think we need to keep in mind that testing is simply a means of getting information. No value judgment. What we DO with this information is a political act. I think comparative information can be useful. It may highlight inequities and provide useful information that could have a beneficial impact to learning. Larry's use of "voluntary" was a sure sign of his opinion. Can anyone give us an update on the issue of national testing without the editoralizing (no offense to Larry), but I'd like to decide what to think based on the facts and not be told what to think. I still haven't formulated my opinion. Jim On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, Larry Rudner wrote: > The fate of national testing should be determined > between October 21st and 24th as the conference > committee comes down with a vote. > > You should have a strong opinion on this one. If > passed, the "voluntary" national tests promise to > have a major impact on participating states. Like > State NAEP, there will be a lot of pressure to > sign up. > > I urge you to call your congressman and tell him > or her what you think. Just call 202-224-3121, > ask for one of your Congress people, and say "I am > a constituent and I am (for | against) the "voluntary" > national testing program. Most offices are keeping > a tally. Go to > http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/partic.htm for info > on identifying your congress people and for > direct phone numbers and e-mail addresses. > > Go to http://www.hslda.org for good info on > the opposition side, http://www.ed.gov/nationaltests > for info on the support side. > > Links to these sites and more are at > http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu/ft/nattest > > I personally am vehemently opposed to the > current plan. This is not a program to help teachers > and parents. Rather, it is another poorly > conceived accountability program following > the "kick them in the pants" philosophy. If > we tell the world that teachers are doing > a bad job, then theoretically, they will work > harder and do better. If the Democrats really > wanted to help teachers and parents, they would not > have allowed states and districts to use these tests > to compare districts, schools, and teachers. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Larry Rudner Rudner#064;cua.edu > ERIC Clearinghouse on http://ericae2.educ.cua.edu > Assessment and Evaluation > > > James E. Purpura, Ph.D. Teachers College, Columbia University TESOL and Applied Linguistics Programs Box 66, 525 West 120th St. New York, NY 10027-6061 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:22:41 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative In a message dated 97-10-20 18:48:00 EDT, you write: << I have a couple questions. The history of large scale testing tells us that despite intentions, this is going end up being a very high stakes test. Who is going to administer it? The classroom teachers who will ultimately be evaluated by it? If not, will outside examiners be used. Given the need to prevent teachers communicating test content, will all students take the test at the same time? If they do, how many examiners will be needed? Who is going to grade the tens of millions of essay items? George K. Cunningham University of Louisville ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:37:32 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: National Tests not to disagree with george below but ... ONE important issue is fairness .. but the MOST important issue is whether utilizing these tests will benefit students ... ie, allow information that is not already available .. to be used in such a way as to improve the reading/math skills of students .. if it does not meet this criterion, then there is no use "inflicting" a 200 million tax bill on the public. there seems to be the view that ... local districts/schools/teachers don't already know about the reading/math skills of their kids .. and who is good at these things and who is not .. but i would submit that with RARE exception .. this is clearly known ... and the problem (which the nat testing program is meant to do) is NOT figuring out where kids stand .. but HAVING THE TIME AND RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM ie, set aside periods of the day on a regular basis .. to work with kids who are struggling with reading and math ... the fact is .. given the schedule of classes/activities/record keeping/extraneous chores ... that exist within the schools today ... prohibits teachers from working one on one with students who need help .. and THAT is the problem .. not trying to identify who is a poor reader or number figurer ... let's invest the money where it will do good ... not give us redundant information .. At 07:31 AM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >H! Anyone interested in national tests, > >The real question (not political) is fairnes to students. It is evident from >research done in the Portland School District that any score at thirty >percent of less of the Raw score ( a conservative percentage ) should be >excluded from any report or group analysis. These students need to be >retested with an easier test ON THE SAME VARIABLE, not just a grade lower >test. > >The top students that get most of the questions right, and this has not been >experimented with, should also be retested to find out how much they know or >can do. > >Giving the same test ot all students in a grade is a sure way to be unfair to >most of the stidents in the grade simply because you are giving them a test >that does not let them show what they can accomplish. > >Geo.. > > ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002 Website: http://www2.ed.psu.edu/espse/staff/droberts/drober~1.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:52:18 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Re[2]: Voluntary National Testing Initiative Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stay tuned for decisions on test security issues. The current plan for scoring is for licensees to handle it. According to the Dept.'s Website, "many commercial test publishers will likely offer the tests as a component of their product line." Thus, they would be responsible for providing scorers. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Voluntary National Testing Initiative Author: at ~internet Date: 10/22/97 8:22 AM In a message dated 97-10-20 18:48:00 EDT, you write: << I have a couple questions. The history of large scale testing tells us that despite intentions, this is going end up being a very high stakes test. Who is going to administer it? The classroom teachers who will ultimately be evaluated by it? If not, will outside examiners be used. Given the need to prevent teachers communicating test content, will all students take the test at the same time? If they do, how many examiners will be needed? Who is going to grade the tens of millions of essay items? George K. Cunningham University of Louisville ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:31:56 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: National Tests Hi!, I agree that use of information by the teacher is paramount and that they already have the tools to get the information, but that does require that tesats be "fair". Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:46:47 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: National Tests Several Days ago I asked Christine Paulson what the official line was on why a national test in important. Lyle V. Jones (http://www.ets.org/research/pic/jones.html,presentation from ETS's William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series) reviews several of these: 1. Christine noted the President's position that NAEP tests are given only "to a sampling of students in states, and we only know what ... the state scores are. So we have to do this for the whole nation." (The White House, 1997a). I think this means that the President thinks that every child should be tested against a set of standards "With the idea of standards you want everybody to clear at least the fundamental bar." This is a dilemma for many state testing programs... on the one hand, you want a test of higher order reasoning skills, on the other, you want to set a mnimum level of proficiency. Minimum proficiency on a test of higher-order cognitive skills? This double personality assumed by assessment program leads to a double personality in school responses to testing programs. On the one hand, schools are benefitted when they have students who perform well on such tests, on the other, instruction is targeted to lifting failing students just over the arbitrary cusp of proficiency. 2. Jones cites Secretary of Education Richard Riley as having "cited a study showing that many more students scored 'proficient' on state assessments than on the national assessment and concluded that 'state standards are still not high enough.' Riley went on to say, 'This is why these proposed national voluntary tests are important' (Riley, 1997). If anyone wasn't sure that the fed didn't really want to becomes involved in the affairs of states, these quotations should put an end to this uncertainty. The issue clearly centers on national standards, and the national test is a policy instrument to implement the standards. 3. Jones cites Deputy Secretary of Education Marshall Smith as asserting that "the purpose of the tests is 'to change odds for kids in the two critical areas of basic skills, reading and mathematics' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). He notes that for students who don't read independently by grade 4, the odds of high school graduation and entrance to college 'go way down,' and that much the same can be said for eighth grade students who can't 'grapple with reasonably complex mathematics.' Smith suggests that test results will lead to interventions for students who are deficient, to help them succeed. He envisions the tests, then, as sort of national minimum competency exams, and he trusts that states, districts, and schools will do what may be required to help low-scoring students" Jones then notes that Robert Stake (1995) recently stressed that while 'many people expect standardized achievement tests to have diagnostic properties, ... most teachers are skeptical. .... The tests seldom inform teachers of previously unrecognized student talents and seldom identify deficits in a way that directs remedial instruction (Koretz, 1987).' The issue here is consequential validity. Though a number of writers have argued that the domain of consequences should be exteremely broad (so as to cover the potential impact of a test on your mother's kitchen sink), Smith's contentions above are assertions concrete consequences that few of us would find controversial, from Popham to Linn. The logic seems to be a. create high national standards b. create assessments based on these standards c. report scores to parents and others d. students will improve their skills and abilities e. thus, admission rates to colleges will increase First, is there evidence to support this assertion? This is the basic standard in the testing community for establishing the validity of a test. Second, is the goal "higher admission rates to colleges" a worthy goal for a national testing program? 4. Jones again cites Secretary Riley "I believe these tests are absolutely essential for the future of American education" (Riley, 997a).... According to the Department of Education, the tests will 'provide parents and teachers with information about how their students are progressing compared to other states, the nation, and other countries. An individual student's achievement level will be related directly to information obtained from two state-of-the-art educational assessment surveys -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Parents can see how their own children measure up to the highest standards of performance at the national and international levels' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997)." This is interesting. The national standards are actually international standards connected to NAEP and TIMSS. We are internationalizing the curriculum with this test, that is, unless the construct (and content) validity among these tests diverge. 5. Jones wrote "Consider eighth-grade math. (Fourth-grade reading tests will follow the same general rules.) It is proposed that 90 minutes of testing will be split in half between multiple-choice and short-answer test items to be based on content frameworks developed by NAEP. When recently asked on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer whether the same test would be given to all students, all over the United States, Secretary Riley replied. 'Absolutely, yes.' (specifications do call for the development of alternate forms to be used in subsequent years.) The new exam 'will be made available to states, districts, schools, teachers, and other individuals to assess students in the spring of every year, beginning in spring 1999. . ... States, school districts, and test publishers -- will be responsible for administering and scoring the tests. After each administration, the entire test along with answers, scoring guides and other materials will be released to the public and placed on the Internet' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997)." Note the key phrases 1. given to all students 2. Many commercial test publishers will likely offer the tests as a component of their product line 3. After each administration, the entire test along with answers, scoring guides and other materials will be released to the public and placed on the Internet I submit that now is the time to formulate a position on whether you support a national curriculum. In some ways, the systemic top-down approach is natural to those who would like to exert leadership and promote change. It makes sense; plans can be drawn up, roles identified, and responsibilities allocated; budgets can be developed and costs estimated; logistics can be charted; and so on. But the issue boils down to one of faith. Given much evidence to the contrary (i.e., the top-down approach hasn't worked so well in the states, test scores go up for a couple of year but then stabilize), what makes this plan likely to succeed? Maybe your faith in government. I don't wnat to be a complete nay-sayer, but at least plan should be drawn to evaluate the plan, and if it is implemented, to evaluate results. At least this is what my academic side would offer as advice. Taking off my academic hat, I consider the issue in terms of my beliefs. In my experience, the federal gov does some things well, and some things not so well. Helping states and parents to change education for the better has one decided downside for the fed: when a mistake is made, the mistake is of national proportion. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:19:42 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Re[2]: National Tests Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg, I'm sorry I can't give you an "official line" because I'm not an official representative of the federal government. However, I think you'll be pleased to hear that an evaluation is currently planned. The National Academy of Sciences will be conducting the evaluation. Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: National Tests Author: at ~internet Date: 10/22/97 10:46 AM Several Days ago I asked Christine Paulson what the official line was on why a national test in important. Lyle V. Jones (http://www.ets.org/research/pic/jones.html,presentation from ETS's William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series) reviews several of these: 1. Christine noted the President's position that NAEP tests are given only "to a sampling of students in states, and we only know what ... the state scores are. So we have to do this for the whole nation." (The White House, 1997a). I think this means that the President thinks that every child should be tested against a set of standards "With the idea of standards you want everybody to clear at least the fundamental bar." This is a dilemma for many state testing programs... on the one hand, you want a test of higher order reasoning skills, on the other, you want to set a mnimum level of proficiency. Minimum proficiency on a test of higher-order cognitive skills? This double personality assumed by assessment program leads to a double personality in school responses to testing programs. On the one hand, schools are benefitted when they have students who perform well on such tests, on the other, instruction is targeted to lifting failing students just over the arbitrary cusp of proficiency. 2. Jones cites Secretary of Education Richard Riley as having "cited a study showing that many more students scored 'proficient' on state assessments than on the national assessment and concluded that 'state standards are still not high enough.' Riley went on to say, 'This is why these proposed national voluntary tests are important' (Riley, 1997). If anyone wasn't sure that the fed didn't really want to becomes involved in the affairs of states, these quotations should put an end to this uncertainty. The issue clearly centers on national standards, and the national test is a policy instrument to implement the standards. 3. Jones cites Deputy Secretary of Education Marshall Smith as asserting that "the purpose of the tests is 'to change odds for kids in the two critical areas of basic skills, reading and mathematics' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). He notes that for students who don't read independently by grade 4, the odds of high school graduation and entrance to college 'go way down,' and that much the same can be said for eighth grade students who can't 'grapple with reasonably complex mathematics.' Smith suggests that test results will lead to interventions for students who are deficient, to help them succeed. He envisions the tests, then, as sort of national minimum competency exams, and he trusts that states, districts, and schools will do what may be required to help low-scoring students" Jones then notes that Robert Stake (1995) recently stressed that while 'many people expect standardized achievement tests to have diagnostic properties, ... most teachers are skeptical. .... The tests seldom inform teachers of previously unrecognized student talents and seldom identify deficits in a way that directs remedial instruction (Koretz, 1987).' The issue here is consequential validity. Though a number of writers have argued that the domain of consequences should be exteremely broad (so as to cover the potential impact of a test on your mother's kitchen sink), Smith's contentions above are assertions concrete consequences that few of us would find controversial, from Popham to Linn. The logic seems to be a. create high national standards b. create assessments based on these standards c. report scores to parents and others d. students will improve their skills and abilities e. thus, admission rates to colleges will increase First, is there evidence to support this assertion? This is the basic standard in the testing community for establishing the validity of a test. Second, is the goal "higher admission rates to colleges" a worthy goal for a national testing program? 4. Jones again cites Secretary Riley "I believe these tests are absolutely essential for the future of American education" (Riley, 997a).... According to the Department of Education, the tests will 'provide parents and teachers with information about how their students are progressing compared to other states, the nation, and other countries. An individual student's achievement level will be related directly to information obtained from two state-of-the-art educational assessment surveys -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Parents can see how their own children measure up to the highest standards of performance at the national and international levels' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997)." This is interesting. The national standards are actually international standards connected to NAEP and TIMSS. We are internationalizing the curriculum with this test, that is, unless the construct (and content) validity among these tests diverge. 5. Jones wrote "Consider eighth-grade math. (Fourth-grade reading tests will follow the same general rules.) It is proposed that 90 minutes of testing will be split in half between multiple-choice and short-answer test items to be based on content frameworks developed by NAEP. When recently asked on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer whether the same test would be given to all students, all over the United States, Secretary Riley replied. 'Absolutely, yes.' (specifications do call for the development of alternate forms to be used in subsequent years.) The new exam 'will be made available to states, districts, schools, teachers, and other individuals to assess students in the spring of every year, beginning in spring 1999. . ... States, school districts, and test publishers -- will be responsible for administering and scoring the tests. After each administration, the entire test along with answers, scoring guides and other materials will be released to the public and placed on the Internet' (U.S. Department of Education, 1997)." Note the key phrases 1. given to all students 2. Many commercial test publishers will likely offer the tests as a component of their product line 3. After each administration, the entire test along with answers, scoring guides and other materials will be released to the public and placed on the Internet I submit that now is the time to formulate a position on whether you support a national curriculum. In some ways, the systemic top-down approach is natural to those who would like to exert leadership and promote change. It makes sense; plans can be drawn up, roles identified, and responsibilities allocated; budgets can be developed and costs estimated; logistics can be charted; and so on. But the issue boils down to one of faith. Given much evidence to the contrary (i.e., the top-down approach hasn't worked so well in the states, test scores go up for a couple of year but then stabilize), what makes this plan likely to succeed? Maybe your faith in government. I don't wnat to be a complete nay-sayer, but at least plan should be drawn to evaluate the plan, and if it is implemented, to evaluate results. At least this is what my academic side would offer as advice. Taking off my academic hat, I consider the issue in terms of my beliefs. In my experience, the federal gov does some things well, and some things not so well. Helping states and parents to change education for the better has one decided downside for the fed: when a mistake is made, the mistake is of national proportion. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:27:03 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing Hi! Christine, Giving all students in a grade is a very unfair practice, both in terms of difficulty of the tests and varietyof curriculum to which they are exposed. Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:28:38 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing In a message dated 97-10-20 12:08:36 EDT, you write: << official VNT website at: http://www.ed.gov/nationaltests Hi! Christine, If it is politically absolutly necessary to go ahead with a national test I strongly suggest that you contact the Northwest Evaluation Association for information on the Rasch model and Item Banks. They have a history of success in building tests that are comparable from one year to the next and avoiding the problem of security. Geo.. _____________________________________________ Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:43:53 -0400 From: George Ingebo Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing Hi! Gregory, Where do you consider the students, especially low achieving ones, in national testing? Geo.. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:02:58 -0500 From: Christine Paulsen Subject: Re[2]: Voluntary National Testing Initiative Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If people have specific suggestions or questions for me about the Voluntary National Tests that may not be of general interest to the AERA-D listserv, please send a message to my e-mail address directly. I will not have access to the listserv for the next two weeks but I will try to respond as quickly as possible... You may also contact the Voluntary National Testing Center at 1-888-944-5001. Thank you, ____________________________________________ Christine Andrews Paulsen American Institutes for Research cpaulsen#064;air-dc.org ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:13:54 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: National Tests I'm sure there are many issues involved in creating national tests; however, many of these issues are also germane to state testing programs. Thus, many criticism of the one are implicitly criticisms of the other. One issue that doesn't fall into this category is that of the state versus federal role in education. Consider the following circumstance: a state, say New Jersey, has spect many millions of dollars creating standards in seven content areas, and plans to give the 7 tests at grade 4, 8 and 11 (each test may run about $1.5 million per year). Also, consider that professional development is planned, based on the state standards and frameworks that are created for those standards. The test at grade 11 is a partial requirement for graduation, and both the 4th and 8th grade tests will be linked, as far as possible, to the 11th grade test. Now suppose that a student passes the New Jersey test but fails the corresponding national test, or the reverse. What is the reaction likely to be in these in these scenarios? In the first case, the argument is that the state test is no good. Recall that the fed said as much: >>>Jones cites Secretary of Education Richard Riley as having "cited a study showing that many more students scored 'proficient' on state assessments than on the national assessment and concluded that 'state standards are still not high enough.' Riley went on to say, 'This is why these proposed national voluntary tests are important' (Riley, 1997). Won't the effect be to usurp the states' responsibilities for setting and maintaining educational standards? Isn't this the intention? Now consider the latter case. The student passes the national test, but fails the state test. Given that the standards for the national test are higher -- using language taken from national officials -- wouldn't parents be able to construct a convincing argument to courts that the state test is biased? Especially if discrepancies between the two tests vary for ethnic or racial groups? I would think the administration would want to be extremely careful with this one. Personally, I think it's a time bomb. Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:26:28 -0400 From: Gregory Camilli Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing George wrote >Where do you consider the students, especially low achieving ones, in >national testing? > This is something I haven't thought much about. Perhaps someone else would like to take a shot? Gregory Camilli Department of Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education Rutgers University 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903 phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 fax: 732-932-6829 Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:53:51 -0700 From: Gage Kingsbury Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Gregory Camilli wrote: > George wrote > > >Where do you consider the students, especially low achieving ones, in > >national testing? > > > This is something I haven't thought much about. Perhaps someone else would > like to take a shot? > > Hi, Greg (and listfolk) -- I was trying to stay out of this, but since Geo and Greg are silly enough to bring actual students into this lovely discussion of political mumbo jumbo, I guess I'll throw in three cents worth. From the literature I know two things related to this issue. First, the distribution of student achievement in a particular grade is huge (the standard deviation tends to be about twice the mean growth from one year to the next). This makes me think that a single test form is a bad idea, from both measurement and psychological viewpoints. The second thing that seems to be clear is that there are several alternatives to a single test form which improve measurement and reduce student frustration. Functional level testing, adaptive testing, and self-adaptive testing have all been shown to improve measurement accuracy, and have all been shown to be favored by students over a test with a single form. If the national tests are designed to improve our knowledge about student achievement, we should probably consider tests of improved design. These types of tests are not experimental since they have been in use for twenty years now. The functional level test isn't even much more costly than a single form test. Let us use what we know from our research to improve our national tests, before they become a national folly. -- gage Gage Kingsbury Portland Public Schools (503)916-3236 gage#064;redsun.pps.rain.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:07:00 -0400 From: Danette McKinley Subject: Re: National Tests Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have to agree with you. In my earlier e-mail, I suggested that we take the same 200 million and use the cash to make improvements that we know are needed in school systems. The abysmal failure of public education in this country is at least partially due to drastic reductions in federal and state funding. For urban centers, the movement of the more affluent residents to the suburbs has meant shrinking resources and compromises in public education. I find it hard to believe (particularly since my company is the subsidiary of an educational testing company) that there aren't measures already out there that would provide "national" information. Why recreate something that already exists?? I'm sorry but this seems illogical - we have 200 million to develop a national test, but insufficient funding to ensure that all students have the necessary educational materials. Let's place blame where it belongs - not on the inadequacy of teachers to teach, or students to learn, but our unwillingness to place accountability on our desire to "get something for nothing" by our clear unwillingness to pay for excellence in education. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:20:54 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: Re[2]: National Testing i will have a shot ... at it i mean ... if the national tests have higher standards .. in general compared to state standards ... low achieving students will look even WORSE on the national tests ... though being worse than at the bottom might be hard to do. in any case ... low achieving students will STILL look low ... and look like they need help ... but we knew that anyway ... the national tests will NOT add i scintilla of information that is not already known for these kids .. At 02:26 PM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >George wrote > >>Where do you consider the students, especially low achieving ones, in >>national testing? >> >This is something I haven't thought much about. Perhaps someone else would >like to take a shot? > > > >Gregory Camilli >Department of Educational Psychology >Graduate School of Education >Rutgers University >10 Seminary Place >New Brunswick, NJ 08903 >phone: 732-932-7496 ext. 343 >fax: 732-932-6829 > >Visit the GSE Website: http://www.gse.rutgers.edu > > ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002 Website: http://www2.ed.psu.edu/espse/staff/droberts/drober~1.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:19:00 -0400 From: Danette McKinley Subject: Re: National Tests Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for laying out in additional detail the argument put out by our government re:national tests. I must apologize for being a nay-sayer, but there are real problems in the assumptions that I read in these quotes. 1) OK - so we set national standards. What guarantees improvement once these standards are established? 2) Sure, we could say that this assessment will allow us to identify relative strengths and weaknesses and remediate accordingly. Will funding magically increase to support this remediation effort? Are we going to blindly believe that some students wouldn't end up at the bottom of the scale? That competition won't exist - only striving for excellence? 3) Related to the above point - does it stand to reason that college admission will go up because of this dramatic push for national standards? Do we think that our more elite institutions are suddenly going to increase class size because each citizen is so proficient? Or, more realistically, are we going to create more community colleges/vocational/technical schools to place students in? I find it hard to believe that with "measurement" advisors, our federal government can make such outrageous promises as they argue for a national test. I'm still trying to figure out how you equate from year to year when full disclosure will occur after each administration. Gee, maybe that's part of the plan to ensure that funding for examination development occurs at the same rate from year to year. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:06:04 -0700 From: Dennis Roberts Subject: Re: National Tests Danette McKinley wrote the following: The abysmal failure of public education in > this country .... I irks me no end when such global over generlized statements like this ... are made. And, chances are .. people that make these statements came through the system in a public school setting ... Sure, public education has a passel of problems .. but to say that (imply pretty openly) it is an "abyysmal failure" .. is to deny the fact that millions of kids go through this arrangement ... achieve very well .. and go on to highly productive lives ... for which public school education has had some role in ... ====================================================== Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 Email: dmr#064;psu.edu ... FAX AC 814-863-1002