Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability
Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability
A Guide for
Policymakers
Prepared By
The Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment
Convened By
American Association of
School Administrators
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
National Middle School Association
October 2001
Members of the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment
Eva L. Baker
Professor of Educational Psychology and Social Research Methods Co-Director,
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
Graduate School
of Education and Information Studies
University of
California, Los Angeles
David C. Berliner
Regents’ Professor of Education College of Education
Arizona State University
Carol Camp Yeakey
Professor of Urban Politics and Policy Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
James W. Pellegrino
Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Psychology Distinguished Professor of
Education
University of Illinois at Chicago
W. James Popham (Chair)
Professor Emeritus
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies University of California,
Los Angeles
Rachel F. Quenemoen
Senior Fellow for Technical Assistance and Research National Center on
Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
Flora V. Rodríguez-Brown
Professor of Curriculum and Instruction/Reading, Writing and Literacy
University of Illinois at Chicago
Paul D. Sandifer (Ret.)
Consultant to the Office of Assessment South Carolina Department of Education
Stephen G. Sireci
Associate Professor
School of Education
Center for Educational Assessment University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Martha L. Thurlow
Senior Research Associate, Department of Educational Psychology College of
Education and Human Development
Director, National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
Commission members’
affiliations do not denote institutional endorsement of the Commission’s
report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State-mandated accountability
tests must be useful to educators concerned about improving the instruction of
children.
The Commission on
Instructionally Supportive Assessment, in support of this assertion, presents
nine requirements for a new generation of statewide achievement tests. The
Commission believes that tests written to these requirements will benefit
students by providing educators with information they can use to improve the
quality of instruction. At the same time, the tests will provide states with
information to hold educators, schools, and school districts accountable for
student performance.
Clearly, state policymakers who
pass accountability legislation have in mind this dual outcome of assessing
and improving student performance. But, all too often, while
stateadministered achievement tests measure performance, they have little
value for instruction. This minimizes their usefulness in an accountability
system that assumes information from tests will result in appropriate changes
in instruction.
To address this
problem, the Commission calls for states to use the nine requirements as steps
to create responsible state assessment systems, including tests that improve
both learning and accountability. Each requirement is supported by reasons for
its importance.
The nine requirements are:
Requirement 1: A
state’s content standards must be prioritized to support effective
instruction and assessment.
Requirement 2: A state’s high-priority content standards must be
clearly and thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students
need to demonstrate competence are evident.
Requirement 3: The
results of a state’s assessment of high-priority content standards should be
reported standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district.
Requirement 4: The
state must provide educators with optional classroom assessment procedures
that can measure students’ progress in attaining content standards not
assessed by state tests.
Requirement 5: A
state must monitor the breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional
attention is given to all content standards and subject areas, including those
that are not assessed by state tests.
Requirement 6: A state must ensure that all
students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state
standards; consequently, it must provide welldesigned assessments appropriate
for a broad range of students, with accommodations and alternate methods of
assessment available for students who need them.
Requirement 7: A
state must generally allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce
statewide tests that satisfy Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing and similar test-quality guidelines.
Requirement 8: A
state must ensure that educators receive professional development focused on
how to optimize children’s learning based on the results of instructionally
supportive assessments.
Requirement 9: A state should secure evidence that supports the ongoing
improvement of its state assessments to ensure those assessments are (a)
appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used, (b)
appropriate for determining whether students have attained state standards,
(c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the cause of negative
consequences.
The Commission of
nationally recognized experts in assessment, curriculum, and instruction was
convened by five national associations representing administrators and
teachers: American Association of School Administrators, National Association
of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School
Principals, National Education Association, and National Middle School
Association.
PREFACE
The individuals
who prepared this report were asked to recommend ways that stateadministered
achievement tests could not only satisfy public demands for accountability,
but also improve the instruction of children. I had the privilege of selecting
the Commission’s members from a list of nominees submitted by a coalition of
administrator and teacher organizations. I used two criteria. First, I wanted
different perspectives represented. Second, I wanted individuals who possessed
recognized expertise in assessment and/or instruction. As a Commission, we
functioned with complete autonomy. Members of the commission received no
remuneration for their work, other than reimbursement for travel expenses. We
appreciate the opportunity to consider independently this important
educational issue.
W. James Popham
Commission Chair
FOREWORD
Educators who
assume the tremendous responsibility of ensuring a quality education for all
children can be effective only with the support and encouragement of the
larger society. State-mandated standards are a form of encouragement. They
signal to educators that the public supports educational improvement for every
child, regardless of his or her background. Teachers and administrators agree
that, when done well, state standards can increase academic rigor, strengthen
curricula, and encourage student learning. But when the standards are linked
to state tests, particularly those with highstakes consequences, educators
have understandable concerns.
All too often
educators’ legitimate concerns about state assessment are not heard by
reform-minded policymakers. Worried that they’ll be accused of running from
accountability, teachers, principals, and superintendents publicly embrace
state assessments while they fret privately about their negative impact on
sound teaching and learning.
This dilemma
brought together five associations that serve the needs of classroom teachers,
school principals, and district superintendents. Our associations acknowledged
that those who mandate state tests frequently believe our ties to our
respective memberships negate the impartiality of our concerns. We then agreed
that it would take an independent group of nationally recognized experts in
assessment, curriculum, and instruction to
attract the attention of state policymakers and urge them to reexamine their
assessment systems. Only then, we concluded, would assessment systems be
improved so that everyone—educators, policymakers, parents, and the public at
large—could be confident that accountability requirements are linked to sound
teaching and learning.
W. James
Popham, noted research scholar and professor emeritus of the University of
California, Los Angeles, was tapped to convene the Commission and serve as its
chair.
Commission
members include nationally recognized authorities in assessment,
curriculum, and instruction, who have
brought a wide breadth of knowledge and experience to this effort.
The five
associations enthusiastically embrace the result of the Commission’s
deliberations and applaud its bold assertion that a state’s assessment system
must meet nine requirements to be seen as credible. We recognize that the
Commission makes no mention of what it might cost states to implement truly
effective assessment systems. The costs will vary across states, of course.
Some have already made major investments in their systems; others have a long
way to go. But without an adequate assessment system, neither educators,
parents, policymakers, nor the public will know if their expectations for
educational quality are being met.
We thank Dr. Popham and the
other Commissioners for their hard work and
we appreciate
their clearly written report. We urge our respective memberships to read the
Commission’s report. And then we ask them to use it together to begin anew the
dialogue with state policymakers about the efficacy of their assessment
systems.
Teachers,
principals, and district superintendents will readily embrace accountability
measures if they are tied to effective assessment systems designed and
implemented to improve classroom instruction. Our hope is that policymakers
will too.
Finally, we acknowledge our
association colleagues who made this collaborative activity possible.
Particular thanks go to Marcella Dianda of NEA for her leadership role. Others
involved from inception through completion were Gail Gross of NAESP, John Nori
of NASSP, and Cynthia Prince and Joe Schneider of AASA.
Paul D. Houston Executive Director
American
Association of School Administrators
Vincent L. Ferrandino Executive Director
National Association of Elementary School Principals
Gerald N. Tirozzi Executive Director
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Robert E. Chase President
National Education Association
Sue Swaim Executive Director
National Middle School Association
INTRODUCTION
This report evolved
in response to the question: Why shouldn’t state-mandated accountability tests
also be useful to educators concerned about improving the instruction of
children? Simply put, why can’t state tests be designed so that the results
are useful to educators as they revamp instruction to improve student
achievement? Clearly, the policymakers who pass such legislation have this
dual outcome in mind. But, all too often, federally mandated and
state-administered tests seem to have little instructional utility, thus
bringing into question their usefulness in an accountability system that
assumes that information obtained from tests will result in appropriate
changes in instruction.
The Commission on
Instructionally Supportive Assessment was convened at the request of a
coalition of administrator and teacher organizations. We accepted the
coalition’s request for assistance because we believe the current focus on
educational testing offers an exceptional opportunity to create assessments
that can help the nation’s children learn better. If tests help teachers do a
better job in the classroom, then they will truly be instructionally
supportive. Moreover, we believe that such assessments can provide
policymakers with the kind of meaningful evidence needed to satisfy today’s
educational accountability demands. Consequently, we have written this report
specifically for state policymakers to help them establish educational
policies that will lead to the development of tests supportive of both
instruction and accountability.
We do not believe that the results of a single test should ever be used to
make significant decisions that affect schools or students. The tests we
recommend will, however, provide one important source of evidence for key
educational decisions.
Our report contains nine requirements that must be met to
ensure a responsible educational assessment system for the improvement of
learning. Certainly, policymakers
might satisfy
these requirements in various ways. One approach would be to draw on the
capabilities of state agencies, such as a state’s department of education, to
carry out certain of the required activities. Another would be to have the
state issue a competitive request for proposals (RFP) to firms and individuals
capable of carrying out one or more of the Commission-required activities.
The Commission
has issued a separate report to assist state authorities who choose to rely on
RFPs and external contractors to obtain necessary products and/or services.
That report provides illustrative language that might be incorporated into
RFPs to satisfy any of the Commission’s nine requirements. (See
Illustrative Language for an RFP To Build Tests To Support Instruction and
Accountability, 2001, available online from each convening association.)
The Commission recognizes that most
states have intended to create assessment systems aimed at improving
instructional quality. This document is an effort to help ensure that such a
goal is reached.
Requirements for the Development
of Instructionally Supportive Assessments
The Commission
believes that states will create responsible assessments for the
improvement of students’ learning if they
implement the nine requirements we describe on the following pages.
Requirement 1
A state’s content
standards must be prioritized to support effective instruction and assessment.
Because
§
educators in many states cannot adequately address within the
amount of time available for instruction the large number of content standards
that are supposedly measured by state tests;
§
state tests often do not adequately assess all of the content
standards, and frequently center on standards that are easiest to assess; and
§
state tests rarely provide educators with the kind of
information they need to improve instruction.
Nearly every
state has developed two kinds of standards. Content standards focus on
knowledge and skills educators are expected to teach. Performance standards
focus on students’ proficiency in
demonstrating the knowledge and skills described in the content
standards. The Commission’s requirements address content standards.
Requirement 1 obliges a state to review and rank-order its content standards
using a process open to all relevant stakeholders—for instance, educators,
parents, and other concerned citizens. This will result in a set of
high-priority content standards that will assist educators and guide test
developers by directing their attention to a limited, manageable set of
standards.
The purpose of
this prioritization is to identify a small number of content standards,
suitable for large-scale assessment, that
represent the most important or enduring skills and knowledge students
need to learn in school. Standards that focus on discrete skills and knowledge
may first need to be subsumed or grouped under larger conceptions of what
students should know and be able to do, so that a smaller number of key
content standards can be prioritized.
At the same time, the Commission recognizes that even
the most thoughtful prioritization of content standards could inadvertently
lead to a narrowed curriculum in which attention focuses on the high priority
content standards to the exclusion of other standards. Requirements 4 and 5
are designed to counter this adverse consequence.
Requirement 2
A state’s high-priority
content standards must be clearly and
thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students need to
demonstrate competence are evident.
Because
§
a state’s high -priority content standards will be measured
by state tests;
§
educators must understand what each of these content
standards calls for from students; and
§
many content standards are not worded with suficient clarity
for rigorous instructional planning and assessment design.
Members of the
Commission regard it as self-evident that better teaching and better testing
are more likely if educators understand clearly where they need to focus their
efforts and test-developers understand clearly what they are supposed to test.
Therefore, we recommend that states analyze their high-priority content
standards to identify what students must do and understand to demonstrate they
have achieved the standards.
This analysis should result in relatively brief,
educator-friendly descriptions of each highpriority content standard’s
meaning by identifying the skills and knowledge that should be the focus of
instruction. To be most useful, the standards and descriptions need to be
articulated across grade levels. That is, they should identify age- or
grade-appropriate skills and knowledge that build from grade to grade so
students learn all the requisites to attain the state’s high-priority
standards.
Requirement 3
The results of a state’s
assessment of high-priority content standards should be reported
standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district.
Because
§
students, parents, educators, and policymakers need
information about which content standards students are and are not attaining;
and
§
educators can do little to improve students’ achievement
without information about their performance on each high -priority content
standard.
The Commission
believes that standard-by-standard reporting of students’ performance on state
tests is critical to the success of standards-based educational reform. We
recognize, however, that if states are to provide adequate information about
students’ skills and knowledge on a per-standard basis, students typically
will need to answer several test items for each content standard that is
assessed. And this means, of course, that fewer content standards can be
assessed by state tests given typical time constraints. This is one reason the
Commission calls for states to prioritize their content standards (see
Requirement 1). We recognize that, for school accountability, it may be
necessary in some instances to aggregate results across standards.
Standard-by-standard
reports provide educators and parents with important information they
currently do not have regarding each content standard. Having this information
will enable educators to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction related to
each standard, and then improve instruction where needed. Standard-by-standard
reports also will provide parents with more specific information about what
their children are learning in school.
Of course, it
is also necessary to alert educators to measurement issues that arise when
information is based on only one source and on potentially few assessment
items, especially for individual students. This information is likely to be
less than reliable, and may be a less than accurate measure of a student’s
true knowledge and skills. Teachers, especially, must bring additional sources
of classroom-based information to their evaluation and intervention decisions
for individual students.
The Commission
also recognizes that focusing state tests on a smaller number of highpriority
content standards creates the possibility that educators will attend so much
to these standards that other standards and subject areas will receive reduced
attention. We address this issue in Requirements 4 and 5.
Requirement 4
A state must provide
educators with optional classroom
assessment procedures
that can measure students’ progress in attaining content standards not
assessed by state
tests.
Because
§
content standards that are not assessed by state tests are
important and should be given instructional attention;
§
educators need good assessment tools to monitor students’
achievement and rarely have the time and resources to develop such tools; and
§
assessments that are routinely administered by educators can
and should be used to provide a complete
picture of what students know and are able to do.
For purposes
of per-standard assessment, statewide tests must measure a limited number of
high-priority content standards. Yet, the Commission believes that
instructional and assessment attention also must be given to the remaining
state content standards. Requirement 4 obliges states to develop optional
classroom assessments for content standards not assessed by state tests. These
assessments will support educators’ efforts to teach a wide range of skills
and knowledge.
We wish to
stress that these classroom assessments are optional, not mandatory.
Although existing federal guidelines require states to assess all essential
content standards, educators must be free to use or develop classroom
assessments other than those provided by the state. We believe, however, that
states have a responsibility to see that educators understand optional
state-developed classroom assessments and know how they could benefit
students. We recommend that states conduct professional development activities
for educators regarding how to best use these optional assessments for
instructional improvement. And we suggest that this professional development
also focus on how educators can design their own classroom assessments to
measure students’ progress in meeting state standards. We also believe it is
critically important for states to make sure that the results of these
classroom assessments have a legitimate role in accountability systems. States
need to let educators know how results from classroom assessments can be
reported, alongside results from state tests, to provide parents and
policymakers with a complete picture of students’ achievement on all the
state’s content standards.
Requirement 5
A state must monitor the
breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional attention is given to
all content standards
and subject areas, including those
that are not assessed by state tests.
Because
§
students benefit from a rich and deep curriculum; and
§
state tests that measure high -priority content standards
could narrow curricular coverage unless
steps are taken to forestall such narrowing.
The
Commission believes that states need to support educators’ broad curricular
coverage, especially if state tests focus on a small number of high-priority
content standards (See Requirement 1). Because students, schools, and school
districts are accountable for performance on state tests, these assessments
are powerful motivators. They can influence educators’ day to day
instructional activities dramatically, and they can inadvertently lead to a
narrowing of the curriculum as educators work to ensure that students perform
well on state tests. A narrowed curriculum would deal almost exclusively with
content assessed on state tests.
We believe states, school
districts, and schools must monitor the breadth of the curriculum that
students experience to ensure that it includes more than the content assessed
on state tests. As noted earlier, we recognize that current federal guidelines
require states to teach and assess all essential state content standards, and
that assessments of such standards can be carried out at the state, district,
and/or school levels. Therefore, we recommend monitoring of curricular breadth
at these same three levels using quantitative and/or qualitative methods that
states and school districts develop.
Requirement 6
A state must ensure that
all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state
standards; consequently, it must provide well-designed assessments appropriate
for a broad range of students, with accommodations and alternate methods of
assessment available for students who need them.
Because –
§
all students must be given appropriate opportunities to
demonstrate the degree to which they have mastered state content standards;
and
§
federal statutes require that such opportunities be ofered in
particular ways.
The
Commission believes that state tests must be designed and developed to allow
participation of the widest range of students, and thus permit valid
inferences about the performance of all
students, including those with disabilities, those with limited English
proficiency, and those with other special needs.
Requirement 6 obligates states
to design statewide assessments or appropriate alternatives (for example,
panel review, performance testing, or portfolio assessment) that provide
accurate and useful information to teachers concerning the degree to which
students with special needs have demonstrated the skills and knowledge
described in the state’s content standards. This requirement is also
consistent with federal laws that obligate states to develop guidelines for
school districts about how all students participate, that is, (a) in the
general assessment without accommodations, (b) in the general assessment with
accommodations, or (c) in an alternate assessment aligned with the state
content standards.
Requirement 7
A state must generally
allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce statewide tests that
satisfy the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and similar
test-quality guidelines .
Because
§
tests developed too hurriedly neither support instruction nor
supply accurate evaluative information for accountability programs; and
§
there is a widespread misunderstanding that high-quality
achievement tests can be developed in two years or less.
The Commission’s members
understand that state policymakers who are eager to improve education may call
for state tests to be developed “as soon as possible.” We recognize that the
authorization for many states’ test-development efforts often is dictated by
annual or biennial legislative and budgetary cycles. We believe however, that
the likely educational impact of these tests is far too important for the
tests to be developed improperly, and proper test development takes time.
Experience informs us that a minimum of three years is needed to develop a
state test to assess high-priority content standards in a way that promotes
instructional improvement.
To be more specific, it takes at least
three years to (a) prioritize a state’s content standards to identify
the standards that state tests will assess, (b) analyze the skills and
knowledge students must demonstrate for each content standard, (c) develop
sufficient numbers of test items for each high-priority standard, (d) evaluate
the test items through small-scale pilot tryouts or other review procedures,
(e) formally field-test all the test items, and (f) assemble operational
test-forms. Moreover, we believe that the kinds of evidence regarding test
quality called for in the Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing are genuinely important. It takes time, for example, to assemble
sufficient and compelling evidence about the validity of a test.
The development of state tests also takes time because
all potential contributors, for instance, teachers, administrators, and
citizens, must be given meaningful opportunities to participate in appropriate
stages of the test-development process.
See
American
Educational Research Association. 1999. Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing,
Washington,
D.C.: Author. See also such documents as Pellegrino, J.W., N. Chudowsky, and
R. Glaser (Eds.) 2001. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design
of Educational Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Requirement 8
A state must ensure that
educators receive professional
development focused on
how to optimize children’s learning based on the results of
instructionally supportive assessments.
Because
§
most educators are unfamiliar with the instructionally
supportive assessment system the Commission advocates; and
§
it is imperative that educators become adept at using such an
assessment system for instructional purposes.
The Commission realizes that the
assessment system we recommend is a new approach that will be unfamiliar to
many educators. The kind of state tests we describe and the role we have set
forth for classroom assessments (see Requirement 4) in the state’s
accountability system are new. Educators will need repeated opportunities to
learn how best to use the instructional information that state tests will
provide. Educators also will need opportunities to either use state-provided
optional classroom assessments or to develop their own classroom assessments
that provide information about students’ learning. We urge state policymakers
to provide educators with a variety of professional development activities
designed to increase their success in using the type of instructionally
supportive assessment system we advocate.
Requirement 9
A state should secure
evidence that supports the ongoing improvement of its state assessments to
ensure those assessments are (a) appropriate for the accountability purposes
for which they are used, (b) appropriate for determining whether students have
attained state
standards, (c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the
cause of negative consequences.
Because
§
any assessment system, no matter how well designed, can be
improved; and
§
a state’s assessment system must perform both an
accountability function and an instructional improvement function.
The Commission believes that
assessment systems need to be evaluated and improved on a continuing basis to
ensure that they fulfill their intended purposes. We think this final
requirement is especially important because we are recommending a new approach
to state testing. The tests the Commission advances in this report represent a
new generation of state tests that provide information for accountability
purposes as well as information for improving instruction. Furthermore, we
have described a new kind of assessment system in which results from state
tests that focus on high-priority content standards are combined with results
from classroom assessments that focus on other state content standards and,
together, provide a more complete picture of students’ learning than would be
provided by a single form of assessment.
We recommend
that states undertake independent evaluations to see if state and classroom
assessments function as we have described in this report. We also think it is
important for independent evaluations and studies to determine the degree to
which a state’s students have had an opportunity to learn what is necessary to
attain the state’s content standards. And it is important for such studies to
provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that assessments specifically
designed to detect the impact of effective instruction are, in fact, sensitive
to well-conceived instructional interventions. The Commission’s chief point
here, of course, is that even assessments intended to be instructionally
supportive must be regularly scrutinized to make certain that children’s
learning has been bettered by the implementation of those assessments. Thus,
evaluative attention must certainly be given to any unanticipated negative
consequences of a state assessment program such as dramatically increased
student dropout rates.
A Shared Responsibility
The members of
this Commission have set forth requirements we believe must be satisfied for a
statewide assessment system to benefit all students. We believe that our nine
requirements, if satisfied, will lead to state assessment programs that
greatly increase the likelihood of educators’ promoting the kinds of
achievement a state desires for its students. We also think that these
assessment programs will provide policymakers with the evaluative evidence
they need to make accountability programs function in the longterm best
interests of their state’s children.
We have
described the assessment system we envision as responsible assessments for
the improvement of learning. If a state’s educational policymakers have an
opportunity to install such instructionally supportive tests, yet do not do
so, then it seems to us that such a failure to capitalize on an opportunity to
benefit children constitutes a form of educational irresponsibility.
We suggest,
therefore, that all of those who have an interest in the quality of a state’s
education system, from its governor to each individual citizen, exert whatever
influence they possess to make sure that the assessment system in their state
satisfies the Commission’s requirements. The education of our children is,
after all, a shared responsibility.
Commission Members
Eva L. Baker
A Professor of Educational Psychology and Social Research
Methods at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Eva
L. Baker has directed the UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE) since
1975. Dr. Baker is also Co-Director of the National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), a competitively awarded
national institution funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Former
president of the Educational Psychology Division of the American Psychological
Association, Dr. Baker has been a national officer of the American Educational
Research Association, and is a former editor of Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis. A congressionally appointed member of the National
Council on Education Standards and Testing, she currently serves on the
Independent Review Committee on the Evaluation of Title I Testing. She is
co-chair of the committee to revise the standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, and is a member of the Advisory Committee on Education
Statistics for the National Center for Educational Statistics. Dr. Baker’s
research focuses on the integration of instruction and measurement, and she is
presently involved in the design of technologically sophisticated testing and
evaluation systems of performance assessment in large-scale environments for
both military and civilian education.
David C. Berliner
David C.
Berliner, Regents’ Professor, School of Education at Arizona State University,
has taught at the Universities of Arizona and Massachusetts, Teachers College,
Stanford University, as well as at universities in Australia and Spain. He
most recently served as the Dean of the College of Education, Arizona State
University. Dr. Berliner is a
member of the National Academy
of Education, a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences, and a past president of both the American Educational Research
Association (AERA) and the Division of Educational Psychology of the American
Psychological Association (APA). From 1970-77, he was Associate Laboratory
Director for Research, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development (now WestEd). He is the recipient of awards for distinguished
contributions from APA, AERA, and the National Education Association (NEA).
Dr. Berliner has co-authored a number of books, including a best-seller,
The Manufactured Crisis, with B.J. Biddle, Putting Research to Work,
with Ursula Casanova, and Educational Psychology (textbook), with
N.L. Gage. He has also authored more than 150 published articles, technical
reports and book chapters, and is the co-editor of The Handbook of
Educational Psychology and the books Talks to Teachers and
Perspectives on Instructional Time.
Carol Camp Yeakey
Carol Camp Yeakey is Professor of Urban Politics and
Policy at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. She has
taught at Columbia University’s Teachers College, Rutgers, Purdue University,
and De Paul University, where she also served as Vice Provost of Academic
Affairs. While at the University of Virginia, she has chaired the Graduate
Program in Policy Studies, designed a new graduate degree program in Policy
Studies, and established internship experiences in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan region. In addition, she conducts the Annual Policy Institute,
which involves national and state legislative leaders. Dr. Camp Yeakey
currently teaches graduate courses in education policy research and analysis,
advises graduate students, and supervises graduate research. She has been a
Ford Fellow of the Academy of Education, a Rockefeller Fellow in Educational
Policy Research at Yale, and a Dartmouth Fellow at the College’s Center for
the Study of Comparative Politics and Intergroup Relations, among other
academic honors. Dr. Camp Yeakey is the author of numerous books, articles,
and book chapters.
James W. Pellegrino
James W. Pellegrino is Liberal Arts and Sciences
Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Pyschology and Distinguished Professor of
Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). He also serves as
co-director of a new interdisciplinary center at UIC focused on cognition,
instruction, assessment, and teacher development. Prior to coming to Chicago,
Dr. Pellegrino was the Frank W. Mayborn Professor of Cognitive Studies at
Vanderbilt University, where he also served as co-director of the Learning
Technology Center (1989-91) and as Dean of Vanderbilt’s Peabody College of
Education and Human Development (1992-98). He has taught at the University of
Pittsburgh and the University of California at Santa Barbara, where he served
as Chair of the Department of Education from 1987 to 1989. For more than 25
years, Dr. Pellegrino has researched children’s and ’s thinking and
learning, and the implications of cognitive research and theory for assessment
and instructional practice. He chaired the National Academy of
Science/National Research Council Study Committee for the Evaluation of the
National and State Assessments of Educational Progress, which in 1999 produced
Grading the Nation’s Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the
Assessment of Educational Progress. He is a member of the Board on Testing
and Assessment of the National Research Council. Dr. Pellegrino has authored
or co-authored more than 185 books, chapters, and journal articles over his
career.
W. James Popham (Chair)
W. James Popham is Professor Emeritus, UCLA Graduate
School of Education and Information Studies. He has spent most of his career
as a teacher, largely at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information
Studies, where he taught courses in instructional methods for prospective
teachers and courses in evaluation and measurement for masters and doctoral
candidates for nearly three decades. In January 2000, he was recognized by
UCLA Today as one of the university’s top 20 professors of the twentieth
century, and was awarded the 1997 Lifetime Achievement in Educational Research
and Measurement by the California Educational Research Association. In 1968,
Dr. Popham founded IOX Assessment Associates, a research and development group
that created statewide student achievement tests for a dozen states. In 1978,
he was elected president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),
and is the founding editor of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
AERA’s quarterly journal. Dr. Popham has written 20 books, including
Testing! Testing! What Every Parent Should Know About School Tests, 180
journal articles, 50 research reports, and 150 papers presented before
research societies.
Rachel F. Quenemoen
Rachel F. Quenemoen is a
Senior Fellow for Technical Assistance and Research at the National Center on
Education Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the Center staff
in 1999, she spent time as a public health administrator, and she was also a
technical assistance coordinator with the Minnesota Department of Children,
Families and Learning. She began her career as an educational administrator of
regional special and regular education services serving public and nonpublic
schools in Minnesota. Ms. Quenemoen has conducted presentations on assessment
and accountability issues at forums across the country, and has authored many
articles on standards, accountability, and assessment.
Flora V. Rodríguez-Brown
Flora V. Rodríguez-Brown is a
Professor of Curriculum and Instruction/Reading, Writing, and Literacy,
University of Illinois at Chicago. In addition, she is the Coordinator of
Bilingual/ESL Training Programs where she directs the university’s recruiting,
advising, and training of students in bilingual and ESL education. She also
directs a family literacy program and is working on restructuring a public
school in Chicago. Dr. Rodríguez-Brown’s research includes studies on language
proficiency and discourse patterns with bilingual children, attitudes and
their relation to second language learning, and the role of transfer and
metacognitive strategies in the development of spelling skills in a second
language. Since joining the University of Chicago faculty in 1982, Dr.
Rodríguez-Brown has taught courses in methodology of language arts and social
studies, philosophy of bilingual education, curriculum development for
non‑English speaking children. She is the author of numerous articles, book
chapters, and monographs.
Paul D. Sandifer
Before becoming a consultant to the Office of Assessment
at the South Carolina Department of Education in October, 2000, Paul D.
Sandifer was its Interim Director. In that capacity, his responsibilities
related to the development, administration, and maintenance of the state’s
assessment system for grades K-12, as well as the validation of examinations
used to certify teachers and administrators. Dr. Sandifer also served as
Director of South Carolina’s Office of Student Performance Assessment where,
among other duties, he was responsible for the state’s Basic Skills Assessment
Program, including test development, annual administration to approximately
315,000 students, reporting test results, and managing testing contracts. From
1974-1991, Dr. Sandifer was Director of the South Carolina Department of
Education’s Office of Research. From 1992-1997, he was Assistant Vice
President, Development Division, ACT, Inc. (formerly American College
Testing). In that capacity, he supervised the development and maintenance of
the ACT Assessment Program, the eighth and tenth grade programs,
postsecondary placement examinations, and college outcome measures. He has
also supervised contracted test development for state education agencies and
other organizations.
Stephen G. Sireci
As an Associate Professor in
the Center for Education Assessment, School of Education, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Stephen Sireci teaches graduate courses in test
development, statistics, scaling methods, educational assessment, validity
theory and research methods, and supervises doctoral students’ research. His
current research activities include evaluating test comparability across
languages, assessing test dimensionality, implementing innovative scaling and
standard setting methodologies, appraising test validity, designing
computer-based tests and performance assessments, estimating the reliability
and validity of scores from complex test designs, improving the attitudes of
teachers and minority students towards standardized testing, and refining
emerging conceptualizations of validity. As a Senior Pyschometrician at the
American Council on Education in Washington, D.C., Dr. Sireci directed,
supervised, and coordinated research and test development activities related
to the Tests of General Educational Development (GED Tests), administered to
more than 800,000 s annually. He also has served as a psychometrician at
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and as a pre-doctoral
fellow at the Educational Testing Service. Dr. Sireci is the author of many
journal articles and book chapters.
Martha L. Thurlow
Martha Thurlow is the
Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of
Minnesota. As Director, she addresses the implications of contemporary U. S.
policy and practice for students with disabilities, including national and
statewide assessment policies and practices, standards-setting efforts, and
graduation requirements. In addition, Dr. Thurlow is a senior research
associate, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human
Development, University of Minnesota. She has worked with diverse groups of
stakeholders to identify key outcomes for young children and students in grades
4, 8, and 12, and at the post-school level. For the past 25 years, Dr. Thurlow
has conducted a wide variety of research studies in special education including
assessment and decision making, learning disabilities, and effective classroom
instruction. She has authored numerous books and book chapters, and has
published more than 200 articles and reports. In 1995, she became co-editor of
Exceptional Children, the research journal of
the Council for Exceptional Children. Free
Educational Testing Preparation Websites:Study
Guide Zone: Test Preparation Study GuidesTest Prep
Review: Online Resource for
Practice Tests |
|
