State Assessment Systems Exploring Best Practices and Innovations: Summary of Two Workshops (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Political Experiences and Considerations
4 Political Experiences and Considerations
Pages 43-50
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
The foundation for MSPAP was a Commission on School Performance established in 1987 by then governor William Schaeffer, which outlined ambi tious goals for public education and recommended the establishment of content standards that would focus on higher order thinking skills. The commission
|
From page 44... ...
Because the Maryland governor appoints members of the state board of education, who, in turn, appoint the superintendent of public instruction, the result was "a team work ing together on education reform." This team was responding to shifting expec tations for education nationally, as well as a sense that state and district policy makers and the public were demanding assurances of the benefits of their investment in education. Ferrara recalled that the initial implementation went fairly smoothly, owing in part to concerted efforts by the state superintendent and others to communicate clearly with the districts about the goals for the program and how it would work and to solicit their input.
|
From page 45... ...
was passed in 1990, with broad bipartisan and public support. It was one of the first state education reform bills and included innovative features, such as a substantial tax increase to fund reform; a restructuring of education governance; the allocation of 10 paid professional development days per year for teachers; and a revamped standards, assessment, and accountability system.
|
From page 46... ...
The state also faced logistical challenges, for example, with field testing and providing results in time for accountability requirements. Nontechnical challenges emerged as well.
|
From page 47... ...
First, Minnesota statute requires regular revision of education standards, so the science standards were actually being revised before the prior ones had been assessed, but assessment revision was built into the process. Second, in 2009 the state legislature, facing severe budget constraints, voted to make the expenditure of state funds on human scoring of assessments illegal.2 More recently, the state has contemplated signing on to the "common core" standards and is monitoring other changes that may become necessary as a result of the Race to the Top initiative or reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
|
From page 48... ...
The flexibility that has also been a feature of the MCA since the beginning -- the state assessment staff's commitment to working with and learning from all of the constituencies concerned with the results -- should allow them to successfully adapt to future challenges, Mattson said. STRATEgIC IMPLICATIONS The three state examples, suggested Lorraine McDonnell, highlight the familiar tension between the "missionaries" who play the important role of seeking ways to improve the status quo and those who raise the sometimes troublesome questions about whether a proposed solution addresses the right problem, whether the expected benefits will outweigh the costs, and whether the innovation can be feasibly implemented.
|
From page 49... ...
Yet unless teachers are provided with substantial opportunities to learn about the deeper curricular implications of innovative assessments and to reshape their instruction in light of that knowledge, the result of any high-stakes assessment is likely to be more superficial test preparation, which McDonnell called "rubric-driven instruction." This conflict between policy pressure for ambitious improvements in achievement and the weak capability of schools and systems to respond was an enduring dilemma during the first wave of innovation, in the 1990s, and McDonnell suggested that it has not been resolved. Yet another lesson, McDonnell said, is that policy makers and test designers need to understand the likely tradeoffs associated with different types of assess ments and the need to decide which goals they want to advance and which ones they are willing to forgo or minimize.
|
From page 50... ...
In several of the experiences discussed at the workshop, rushed implementation led to technical problems, undue stress on teachers and students, and a focus on testing formats at the expense of clear connections to curriculum. In several states, testing experts acquiesced to political pressure to move quickly in a direction that the testing technology could not sustain.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.