Chapter 2: National

Developments: Impact on
Classroom Testing and
Measurement
Presented by: Kristy Wieganer; Emily Xu
Introduction
Over the last 3 decades, many educational reform initiatives have had a
significant impact on educational testing and assessment policy and practice.
● Both Democrats and Republicans have accused each
other of playing politics around educational reform. The
polarization between parties has deepened.

● Kubiszyn and Borich describe the history and current

status of educational testing reform in a balanced
manner- intentionally, so readers can come to their own
conclusions about the value and benefits of these
initiatives.
 Regular Education Reform
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
19
Educational Reform

*Since it’s release, a number of regular education

reform initiatives have been implemented to
overcome deficiencies.

*Historically, regular education reform has

included:

❖ Raised expectations for students

❖ Development of statewide standards
❖ HST and increased accountability along
with incentives for improved performance 1983 Release
and improved teacher salaries
❖ Innovations in teacher training
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB reauthorization influenced educational testing the most!
Public “Report Cards” Issued Annually
❖ Describe performance of subgroups of
students on HST
➢ Identify differences among:
■ Economically Disadvantaged
■ Ethnic Minorities
■ Limited English Proficient
■ Students with Disabilities
❖ Used to rank schools
➢ From Low-Performing to Exceptional
➢ Based on state-specified achievement
levels
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
● States allowed to choose own criteria for
academic proficiency
● 2002 law required all state criteria had to
specify that 100% of students who take
annual assessment had to be academically
proficient by 2013-14
● For last decade, criteria set by states
increased each year in attempts to meet
100% proficiency
● If a school failed to meet AYP 2 consecutive
years, state imposed consequences:
shutting down schools/replacing school
staff
 No Child Left Behind (Con’t)
“A school’s proficiency rating under the NCLB depends as much on location as on student performance.”
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) CON’T
❖ States could use different tests to
measure AYP: state specific or
commercially developed standardized
tests.
❖ States could change criteria for passing
the test from year to year
❖ Very difficult to compare students
across states or even within a state from
year to year.
NCLB Waivers
“Over time, it became clear that the 100%
proficiency goal was unattainable”
❖ President Obama and Secretary of Education, Arnie
Duncan, began to offer waivers from certain NCLB
requirements: 100% proficiency and requirement
for states to provide free tutoring to struggling
students
In exchange for waiver, states had to:
❖ Emphasize attainment of college and career
readiness standards
❖ *Focus academic improvements efforts on the
lowest performing 15% of schools
❖ *Develop teacher evaluation plans based in part on
student test performance.
 High-Stakes Testing (HST)
HST is the use of a summative test /assessment (designed to measure student achievement
after a period of instruction has been completed) to make decisions of prominent
educational, financial, or social impact.
● Similar to NCLB study, the diverse HST programs
● Before NCLB, states established their own made it difficult to compare students across states.
proficiency criteria. ● Some state HST programs required that certain
● State HST began with 1970s Florida levels of proficiency were necessary for students to
competency testing program and was be promoted to the next grade or for graduation.
heralded by 1990 Texas assessment. ● Some HST results also dictated teacher
● By 2002, HST programs spread to all 50 salaries/bonuses or reassignments of school staff-
states. didn’t originate with NCLB.
● Because HST was in place before NCLB, ● Controversies surrounding HST:
states got authority to select tests that ○ Educators altering test scores/coaching students
would satisfy NCLB accountability to fix incorrect answers
requirements- essentially “killing two birds ○ Teaching to the test
with one stone.” ○ Extra stress on teachers and students
○ Excessive time on test prep
 Special Education Reform
A less-visible reform movement has also been evident within the realm of special education for the
last 25 years.

*Children with special needs were guaranteed
a Free and Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE) in 1975- Education of All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHC)
* Before this law, children with special needs
were denied services in our education system.
*After this law, special education students
received FAPE, but were largely segregated
from general education.
*Special Education Law required special
needs children receive FAPE in the Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE) or
“mainstreamed” but this was often
overlooked.
* This prevented them from having
opportunities to catch up to their general
education peers.
*Special needs students were stigmatized and
remained in special education throughout
their school years
 IDEA and IDEIA
*The segregation between regular and special
education students prompted the passage of
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) in 1990.
*This act was reauthorized and intensified in
1997 with IDEA-97.
* The most recent reauthorization was the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act- IDEIA in 2004
* These initiatives diminished a long standing
segregation of regular and special education.
*Students with disabilities must now be
instructed as much as possible by regular
education teachers within the general
curriculum.
*Unless a multidisciplinary team can justify
accommodations or an alternate assessment,
students with disabilities must participate in
the same annual assessment that is required
for regular education students.
 Merging Regular and Special Education Reform:
IDEIA and NCLB
Complementary Pieces of Federal Legislation

*Improve educational outcomes for ALL students

*Emphasize the use of scientifically based

instruction

*Emphasize ongoing formative and interim

monitoring of all students (PM-progress monitoring;
RTI model)

*The impact of NCLB and IDEIA on regular

education teachers has been significant.
 Standards-Based Reform
A “standards-based reform” movement arose in response to the release of A
Nation at Risk in 1983. Standards-based reform evolved into two general
themes: academic standards and performance standards.

Academic Standards:
● In an effort to strengthen their curricular, several states began to integrate and improve the
objectives for pupils in each academic subject across the elementary, middle and high school in
response to the release of A Nation at Risk.

● For some reasons(political, philosophical and practical), the development of uniform and
universal academic standards at the national level was too controversial. Many conservatives
supported state-based standards but considered national standards to be an unwanted and
even illegal intrusion of the federal government into the domain of the individual states.

● Progress toward development of acceptable standards was inconsistent and uneven across
the states.
The Common Core State Standards(CCSS)
In response to the disappointing at
uneven efforts of individual states to
develop strong academic standards, in
2009 the National Governors’ Association
and the Council of Chief State School
Officers began a year-long process to
identify the CCSS.

What is the CCSS? A clear set of shared goals

and expectations for the knowledge and
skills students need in ELA and math in
each grade level so they can be prepared
to succeed in college, career and life.
Controversy: an inappropriate overreach of
the federal government into education;
It was state leaders that developed and promoted
this education reform.
The CCSS were not developed or required by the
federal government.
Federal funding was made available for states to
pursue this initiative.
 Performance Standards
Performance standards: In order to
determine whether academic
standards were attained, it was
necessary to establish performance
standards. To do so, committees
identified appropriate levels of
performance for each standard that
would indicate that the objective, or
standard, was met .
Intention: raise expectations enough
to raise achievement
Controversy: definitions of
accomplishment; variability in
performance standards
 ❏ Obama announced the $4.35 billion RTT federal grant

Race to the Top ❏

program in July 2009.
This initiative was intended to stimulate the
(RTT) economy, support job creation, and invest in critical
sectors, including education.
❏ The RTT initiative was intended to support innovative
that would lead to improved achievement for all
subgroups of students.
❏ Voluntary participation;
❏ The RTT gave states the opportunity to compete for
grants intended to spur innovation and reforms
❏ Not limited to general education;also intended to
support implementation of technology innovations

Controversy

Conservative Republicans:federal overreach into states’

rights;

Others: welcomed its emphasis on critical thinking skills

 Other Trends: Computer-Adaptive Achievement Testing
Computer-adaptive tests use software to adjust item difficulty levels
based on student responses to previous items.

Proponents: Critics:

● Computerized adaptive tests provide ● Too new to be used for

results that are more accurate; better
than “one-size-fits-all” paper-and pencil
standardized tests
● Provide real-time feedback; reduce
amount of time spent completing and
scoring tests; minimizing grading errors
● Increase test security
● Cost-effective and objective
important decision making
purposes
● Further study of reliability and
validity is needed
● Low-income schools cannot
afford it.
● Require extensive technical
support capacities
Globalization and International Competitiveness
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
Generally in the 2011 TIMSS, U.S. students lagged behind Asian students in
both science and mathematics, and behind some European countries in
science.

Program for International Student Assessment

The 2012 PISA results indicated that U.S. students scored below the
international average in mathematics (13 points) and science(4 points) and
higher in reading (2 points). Overall, U.S. 15-year-olds scored lower on
average than their peers in nine Asian countries, eight European countries
and Canada. The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an
unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/
 Competency Testing for Teachers
MTTC: Candidates for Michigan teacher certification are required to pass tests
designed by the State of Michigan to ensure that certified teachers have the basic
skills and content knowledge to teach effectively. The competency exams are
known as the Michigan Test(s) for Teacher Certification (MTTC). All MTTC tests are
now computer-based only.
Much controversy still surrounds the use of tests aligned with the teacher
competency standards.

Goldhaber(2007) found that performance on teacher licensing tests was weakly

and inconsistently related to student performance. There has been increased
interest in the use of performance and portfolio assessment (Chapter 9 and 10).

Nevertheless, interest in the use of paper-and pencil tests to evaluate teacher

competency has continued. By 2001, 42 states and the federal government relied
heavily on test scores to judge teacher quality and the quality of teacher
preparation programs(Blair, 2001).
 Teacher Evaluation Based on Student Test Scores:
Value-Added Models (VAM)
Interest has increased dramatically over the last five years in evaluating
teachers base, in part, on student test scores.

In 2014, 35 states and the District of Columbia
required that student achievement must be a
significant, or the most significant factor, in
teacher evaluations(Layton, 2014).
States are increasingly using teacher
evaluation systems like VAM because teacher
evaluation systems were required for the RTT
funding competition sponsored by the federal
government in 2009.
Yet, a survey (Polikoff and Porter,
2014) revealed little to no
correlation (Chapter 14) between
ratings of teachers based on VAM
and ratings of quality of teaching.
In 2014, the American Statistical
Association recommended that
states and school districts refrain
from using VAM systems to make
important personnel decisions.
Thank you for you attention!