National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 9 Research Needs
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

References

Alpert, T., and Slater, S. (2010). A Coherent Approach to Adaptive Assessment. Presentation prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Alpert.pdf [accessed September 2010].

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Baker, E.L., O’Neil, H.F., and Linn, R.L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1,210-1,218.

Bennett, R. (2010). Innovative Assessment Systems: The Role of New Technology. Presentation prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Bennett.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Bishop, J. (1997). The Effect of Curriculum-Based Exit Exam Systems on Student Achievement (Working paper no. 97-15). Ithaca, NY: Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University. Abstract Available: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/156/ [accessed September 2010].

Blanc, S., Christman, J.B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E., and Bulkley, K.E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205-225.

Bond, L. (1995). Unintended consequences of performance assessment: Issues of bias and fairness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14, 21-24.

Bulkley, K., Christman, J., Goertz, M., and Lawrence, N. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204. Abstract available: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921425767 [accessed September 2010].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Cagle, P. (2010). How Assessments Could Inform Instruction. Presentation Prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Cagle.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Christman, J., Neild, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., and Travers, E. (2009). Making the Most of Interim Assessment Data. Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

Chudowsky, N., and Chudowsky, V. (2007). No Child Left Behind at Five: A Review of Changes to State Accountability Plans. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Clune, W.H., and White, P.A. (2008). Policy Effectiveness of Interim Assessments in Providence Public Schools. (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-10, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.) Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Cook, H.G. (in press). FLARE Language Learning Targets. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Cortiella, C., and Burnette, J. (2008). Challenging Change: How schools and Districts Are Improving the Performance of Special Education Students. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Available: http://www.ncld.org/images/stories/OnCapitolHill/PolicyRelatedPublications/ChallengingChange/ChallengingChange.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Cronin, J., Dahlin, M. Xiang, Y., and McCahon, D. (2009). The Accountability Illusion. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Available: http://www.evsd.org/documents/accountability.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Curriculum-Embedded Performance Assessments. Presentation Prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Darling-Hammond1.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Dunbar, S.B, Koretz, D.M., and Hoover, H.D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289-303.

Elmore, R.F. (2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R.F. Elmore, and L.S. Siskin (Eds.), High Schools and the New Accountability (pp. 195-209). New York: Routledge.

Ferrara, S. (2009). The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) 1991-2002: Political Considerations. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Steve%20Ferrara.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Fuchs, T., and Woessmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using the PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32(2-3), 433-464.

Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., and Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track Achievement. (Working Paper No.06-1). Berkeley: University of California and Stanford University, Policy Analysis for California Education.

Goertz, M.E. (2009). Overview of Current Assessment Practices. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Peg_Goertz_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Goertz, M.E., Olah, L.N., and Riggan, M. (2009). Can Interim Assessments Be Used for Instructional Change? CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on Issues and Research in Education Policy and Finance. Available: http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb_51_role%20policy%20brief_final%20web.pdf [accessed August 2010].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Gong, B. (2009). Innovative Assessment in Kentucky’s KIRIS System: Political Considerations. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Brian%20Gong.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Government Accounting Office. (2003). Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO Report-03-389. Available: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-389 [accessed November 2009].

Government Accounting Office. (2009). No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education’s Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments. GAO Report-09-911. Available: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-911 [accessed November 2009].

Hambleton, R.K. (2009). Using Common Standards to Enable Cross-National Comparisons. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Ron_Hambleton.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Heritage, M. (2010). Making Use of Assessment Information. Presentation for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Heritage.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinksi, T., and Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24-31.

Herman, J. (2010). Next Generation Assessment Systems: Toward Coherence and Utility. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Herman.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Herman, J., Osmundson, E., and Silver, D. (2010). Capturing Quality in Formative Assessment Practice: Measurement Challenges. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing and the University of California, Los Angeles. Available: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R770.pdf [accessed August 2010].

Hess, K. (2010). Strategies for Helping Teachers Make Better Use of Assessment Results. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Hess.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Hess, K., Kurizaki, V., and Holt, L. (2009). Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawaii Progress Maps Project: Lessons Learned from Learning Progressions. Available: http://www.nciea.org/publications/Hawaii%20Lessons%20Learned_KH09.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Ho, A.D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Education Researcher, 37(6), 351-360.

Jennings, J., and Rentner, D.S. (2006). Ten big effects of No Child Left Behind on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.

Kirst, M., and J. Mazzeo (1996). The rise, fall, and rise of state assessment in California: 1993-1996. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(4), 319-323.

Koretz, D., and Barron, S. (1998). The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., and McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5-16.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Koretz, D., Mitchell., K., Barron S., and Keith, S. (1996). Perceived Effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Final Report, Project 3.2 State Accountability Models in Action. National Center for Research on Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.

Krajcik, J., Stevens, S., and Shin, N. (2009). Developing Standards That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Krajcik_Stevens_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Lai, E.R., and Waltman, K. (2008). The Impact of NCLB on Instruction: A Comparison of Results for 2004-05 to 2006-07. IARP Report #7. Iowa City: Center for Evaluation and Assessment, University of Iowa.

Lane, S., Ventrice, J., Cerrillo, T., Parke, C., and Stone, C. (1999). Impact of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP): Evidence from the Principal, Teacher, and Student Questionnaires (Reading, Writing, and Science). Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999). Available: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434928.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Lazer, S. (2009). Technical Challenges with Innovative Item Types. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Steve%20Lazer.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Lindquist, E.F. (1951). Preliminary considerations in objective test construction. In E.F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 119-158). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., and Dunbar, S.B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.

Linquanti, R. (2010). Issues to Consider with Innovative Assessments: How Will English Language Learners Participate? Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Linquanti.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Lukhele, R., Thissen, D., and Wainer, H. (1994). On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed-response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 234-250.

Marion, S. (2009). Changes in Assessments and Assessment Systems Since 2002. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Scott%20Marion.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Mattson, D. (2009). Science Assessment in Minnesota. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices in State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment while Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Dirk_Mattson.pdf [accessed September 2010].

McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, Changes, and Challenges; Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Mislevy, R. (1998). Foundations of a new test theory. In N. Fredericksen, R.J. Mislevy and I.I. Bejar (Eds.), Test Theory for a New Generation of Tests (pp. 19-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mislevy, R.J., and Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-Centered Assessment Design: Layers, Structures, and Terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

National Research Council. (1995). Anticipating Goals 2000: Standards, Assessment, and Public Policy: Summary of a Workshop. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999a). Embedding Questions: The Pursuit of a Common Measure in Uncommon Tests. Committee on Embedding Common Test Items in State and District Assessments. D.M. Koretz, M.W. Bertenthal, and B.F. Green (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999b). Uncommon Measures: Equivalence and Linkage Among Educational Tests. Committee on Equivalency and Linkage of Educational Tests. M.J. Feuer, P.W. Holland, B.F. Green, M.W. Bertenthal, and F.C. Hemphill (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds). Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2005). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2008). Common Standards for K-12 Education? Considering the Evidence: Summary of a Workshop Series. A. Beatty, Rapporteur. Committee on State Standards in Education: A Workshop Series. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olah, L., Lawrence, N., and Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245.

Perie, M., Marion, S., and Gong, B. (2007). The Role of Interim Assessments in a Comprehensive Assessment System: A Policy Brief. Center for Assessment, The Aspen Institute, and Achieve, Inc. Available: http://www.achieve.org/files/TheRoleofInterimAssessments.pdf [accessed March 2010].

Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S., and Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238-268.

Roeber, E. (2010). Designing High Quality, Affordable Assessment Systems. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Roeber.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Rudner, L. (2010). Implementing the GMAT computerized adaptive test. In W. Van der Linden and C.A.W. Glas (Eds.), Elements of Adaptive Testing (pp. 151-166). Available: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k22114l4r64x7316/fulltext.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559.

Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., and Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of science assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215-232.

Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 405-450.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Shin, N., Stevens, S., and Krajcik, J. (in press) Using Construct-Centered Design as a Systematic Approach for Tracking Student Learning Over Time. London, England: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., and Krajcik, J. (2006) Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1), 1-98.

Smith, M., and O’Day, J. (1991). Systematic school reform. In S. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Stecher, B., and Hamilton, L. (2009). What Have We Learned from Pioneers in Innovative Assessment? Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Brian_Stecher_and_Laura_Hamilton.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Stecher, B.M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L.S., Marsh, J.A., Robyn, A., McCombs, J.S., Russell, J.L., and Naftel, S. (2008). Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, 2004 to 2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., and Krajcik, J.S. (2009). The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Sunderman, G.L., Ed. (2008). Holding NCLB Accountable: Achieving Accountability, Equity, and School Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Thurlow, M. (2010). Issues to Consider with Innovative Assessments: Students with Disabilities Perspectives. Presentation for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Thurlow.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Toch, T. (2006). Margins of Error: The Education Testing Industry in the No Child Left Behind Era. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Topol, B., Olsen, J., and Roeber, E. (2010). The Cost of New High-Quality Assessments: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Potential Costs for Future State Assessments. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Tucker, M. (2010). BOTA Workshop on Best Practices for State Assessment. Presentation prepared for Workshop II of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, April 6-7, 2010. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Best_Practices_for_State_Assessment_presentation_Tucker.pdf [accessed September 2010].

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary Available: http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/resources.html [accessed January 2010].

Wilde, J. (2010). Comparing Results of the NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment: ELLs, Former ELLs, and English-Proficient Students. Paper presented at the 2010 American Educational Research Association Annual meeting. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/16/AERA_2010_Wilde.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Wilson, M., Ed. (2004). Towards Coherence Between Classroom Assessment and Accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item-Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

Wilson, M. (2009). Developing Assessment Tasks That Lead to Better Instruction and Learning. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Mark_Wilson.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Wise, L. (2009). How Common Standards Might Support Improved State Assessments. Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Laurie_Wise_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Zwick, R. (2009). State Achievement Comparisons: Is the Time Right? Paper prepared for the workshop of the Committee on Best Practices for State Assessment Systems: Improving Assessment While Revisiting Standards, National Research Council, Washington, DC, December 10-11, 2009. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Rebecca_Zwick_Paper.pdf [accessed September 2010].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2010. State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13013.
×
Page 120
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agendas »
State Assessment Systems: Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Educators and policy makers in the United States have relied on tests to measure educational progress for more than 150 years, and have used the results for many purposes. They have tried minimum competency testing; portfolios; multiple-choice items, brief and extended constructed-response items; and more. They have contended with concerns about student privacy, test content, and equity--and they have responded to calls for tests to answer many kinds of questions about public education and literacy, international comparisons, accountability, and even property values.

State assessment data have been cited as evidence for claims about many achievements of public education, and the tests have also been blamed for significant failings. States are now considering whether to adopt the "common core" academic standards, and are also competing for federal dollars from the Department of Education's Race to the Top initiative. Both of these activities are intended to help make educational standards clearer and more concise and to set higher standards for students. As standards come under new scrutiny, so, too, do the assessments that measure their results.

This book summarizes two workshops convened to collect information and perspectives on assessment in order to help state officials and others as they review current assessment practices and consider improvements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!