View
216
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Equity and AssessmentThe Opportunity to Learn Challenge
William T. TrentUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Math/Science Partnerships WorkshopAssessment Of Student Learning
February 1 - 3, 2004
Introduction
The focus of this workshop on assessment is timely and occurs at a critical point as the results from the NCLB required assessments become more clear. Combined with the results from graduation tests and state standards-based assessments, the resulting discussions have necessitated a renewed focus on the role of race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and school factors in shaping academic preparation, access and performance. The persisting inequalities require a renewed level of attention focused on issues of equity.
Equity and Assessment
The main point addressed in this presentation is straight forward.
The constraints on “Opportunities to learn” for students of color and poor students are substantial.
As a consequence, our assessment tools and practices are called into question, especially when they are the basis for high stakes decisions about students’ placements in the school setting .
Equity and Assessment
A point of focus:
A key assumption in the conceptualization and design of most assessments is that all students, by and large, have received a substantial dose of the treatment—instruction and learning experiences. This is a necessary assumption and one with we can all agree.
Addressing the equity question however tells us immediately that this assumption is untenable for a substantial proportion of our students and for a number of reasons.
SAT/ACT
Preschool Years
3rd & 4th Grade
Middle School5th & 6th Grades
Race Class & Gender differentiation
State and National Assessments
Tracking and ability grouping
Algebra Gateway Courses
8th Grade
High School9th –12th Grades
Freshman Postsecondary
Dropouts SuspensionExpulsion
Major field choice
Graduation rates
Enrollment by institutional selectivity and sector
Graduation rates
3rd Year Postsecondary
Low retention
Graduate and Professional School
AccessEntrySupport
Differential access and participation by race ethnicity and SES
Race Class & Gender differentiation
College Graduation
Segregation by Race, Ethnicity and SES
GRE
Critical Points Along the Educational Pipeline
Equity and Assessment
Several factors influence the opportunity to learn and thereby impact assessment:
Segregated schooling
Disparate school quality
Teacher expectations
Parent resources
Community resources
In 1978, a divided court ruled to preserve the use of race in college admissions. In that decision, Justice Harry Blackmun
wrote a more frequently quoted phrase but one which is challenging to operationalize:
"In Order to Get Beyond Race, We Must First Take Account of Race. There Is No Other Way."Justice Harry Blackmun in BAKKE
Fifty (50) years ago Brown was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court
Access and equity issues remain unresolved
Equity and Assessment
• Segregated schooling is on the increase• Hyper segregated-- high minority & high poverty -- schools
are especially harmful to student learning and attainment• African American and Latino/a students are often in
schools where the quality of courses available –AP courses for example -- are limited
• African American and Latino/a students are often in schools where they are overrepresented in Special Education, Suspensions and Expulsions but underrepresented in Gifted Education
• Race and ethnicity, gender and poverty status at the student level, along with school level factors like school size, racial composition and teacher credentials and expectations are consequential for educational outcomes.
Equity and Assessment
• There are important correlates of school racial composition that implicate equity.
For example:High SES and race concentrations
Differential College-going rates
Differential Teacher expectations
Differential access to quality teachers
Differential access to a high quality curriculum
Race, Ethnic and Poverty Concentrations
Table 1. Average High School Race, Ethnic and Poverty Concentrations by Race and Ethnicity for 1999-2000.
All H.S. Students
African American H.S. Students
Latino H.S. Students
Asian H.S. Students
White H.S. Students
Mean School Pct. African American
15.28 50.49 11.36 11.98 8.46
Mean School Pct. Latino
14.68 10.83 52.78 18.13 6.91
Mean School Pct. Asian
4.50 3.39 5.37 23.85 3.13
Mean School Pct. White
64.35 34.78 29.70 45.24 80.57
Mean School Pct. Free/Reduced Price Lunch Eligible
26.60 39.37 43.39 26.51 19.51
n 13,428,456 1,977,809 1,896,098 569,702 8,195,277
From High School and Beyond Base Year School Data File
High School %
Black
Average % 1979 Grads Attending “Regular”
College in 1980
Unweighted N
Weighted N
High School % Minority
Average % 1979 Grads Attending “Regular” College in
1980
Unweighted N
Weighted N
0-9% 46.2736 597 14,595 0-9% 46.5026 425 12,067 10-24% 43.0249 130 1,716 10-24% 41.5993 151 2,867 25-49% 44.0342 110 1,433 25-49% 47.9709 151 2,199 50-74% 34.2926 41 521 50-74% 39.1008 84 657
75-100% 35.1982 52 755 75-100% 36.9658 130 1,370
From National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 First Follow-up School Questionnaire
10th Grade % Black
Average % 1989 Grads
Attending a 4-Year College
in 1990
Unweighted N
Weighted N
10th Grade %
Minority
Average % 1989 Grads
Attending a 4-Year College
in 1990
Unweighted N
Weighted N
0-9% 0-9% 49.6187 396 10-24% 10-24% 57.6398 211 25-49% 25-49% 46.1620 179 50-74% 50-74% 39.8208 106
75-100% 75-100% 38.7857 140
Table 2. College Going Rates by High School Racial Composition
Mis
sour
i V. J
enki
nsT
each
er E
ffic
acy
- ta
bles
Mean 1994 Standardized Math Test Scores by Teacher Efficacy and Student Race
Elementary Schools (54 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 71%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 37.8627 23.1480 2833 White 46.9022 29.8194 1074 Other 47.8480 30.3513 408 Teacher Efficacy Highest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 82%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 41.7899 21.9429 2437 White 44.3948 21.6472 998 Other 64.7794 42.6367 136Middle Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 70%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 65.4040 12.7002 1141 White 73.3903 13.7969 433 Other 71.5779 13.0258 154 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 74%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 84.5889 33.0415 861 White 84.2338 24.5067 278 Other 90.4314 30.8028 51
High Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 67%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 163.3993 22.2487 1142 White 174.9231 23.8428 247 Other 161.2083 26.0400 48 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 75%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 146.6864 43.5199 931 White 155.3628 49.6842 543 Other 164.6875 33.6789 224
Mean 1994 Standardized Reading Test Scores by Teacher Efficacy and Student Race
Elementary Schools (54 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 71%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 34.4574 22.9125 2820 White 44.6047 31.9161 1032 Other 42.4632 28.9741 408 Teacher Efficacy Highest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 82%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 39.1554 23.4264 2445 White 43.2843 23.7663 1006 Other 56.7226 39.0695 137
Middle Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 70%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 63.8105 16.3103 1140 White 72.1674 19.5360 436 Other 68.3987 17.2272 158 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 74%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 82.5293 35.3227 871 White 85.3821 28.1704 280 Other 86.0192 33.1470 52
High Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 67%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 162.8351 25.8703 1134 White 177.8105 29.4525 248 Other 163.0612 31.0345 49 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 75%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 151.9507 45.7036 933 White 160.9502 52.2394 542 Other 159.9643 36.7406 224
Mis
sour
i V. J
enki
nsT
each
er E
ffic
acy
- ta
bles
TABLEMean Years of Teacher Experience by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
All Teachers Black Teachers Non-Black Teachers
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable
-White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable
-Black
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable
-White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable
-Black
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable
-White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable
-Black
School Year 1995-96
All Schools 5,167 12.3 13.2 12.1 12.0 1,112 14.7 15.2 14.9 13.8 4,055 11.6 12.9 11.4 11.1
Elementary 2,800 12.1 14.0 11.8 10.9 573 15.1 16.1 15.1 14.5 2,227 11.3 13.6 11.0 9.5Middle 1,102 10.9 10.2 11.1 10.5 273 13.5 14.0 14.1 11.1 829 10.0 9.6 10.1 10.0
High 1,086 14.3 15.2 14.2 14.0 214 14.8 13.9 15.6 13.3 872 14.2 15.5 13.8 14.2Special Programs 179 12.6 10.5 12.6 14.1 52 16.4 17.3 15.1 16.6 127 11.1 9.4 12.0 11.8
School Year 1996-97
All Schools 5,466 12.0 12.8 11.8 11.6 1,168 14.2 14.7 14.4 13.6 4,298 11.4 12.4 11.2 10.6
Elementary 2,924 11.7 13.6 11.5 10.5 564 15.0 15.2 15.2 14.3 2,360 11.0 13.4 10.7 8.9Middle 1,150 10.4 10.2 10.6 9.6 311 12.9 14.3 13.2 11.0 839 9.4 9.5 9.5 8.5
High 1,212 14.0 13.5 14.1 14.2 236 14.3 15.2 14.4 13.6 976 13.9 13.2 14.0 14.5Special Programs 180 12.9 11.5 13.3 13.7 57 14.4 10.1 13.9 15.5 123 12.2 11.7 13.1 11.7
School Year 1997-98
All Schools 5,749 11.5 12.6 11.5 10.4 1,166 14.1 14.2 14.6 12.7 4,583 10.8 12.4 10.7 9.4
Elementary 2,906 11.4 13.7 11.2 10.2 532 15.5 15.0 15.8 14.9 2,374 10.5 13.5 10.2 8.8Middle 1,228 9.6 9.9 9.9 8.0 312 12.6 12.4 13.7 9.4 916 8.6 9.5 8.5 7.2
High 1,433 13.0 14.0 13.2 11.6 266 13.2 15.7 13.7 11.7 1,167 13.0 13.7 13.1 11.6Special Programs 182 12.7 11.7 12.7 13.5 56 13.4 12.0 12.8 14.0 126 12.3 11.6 12.6 13.0
TABLEPercent of Teachers with an Advanced Degree by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
All Teachers Black Teachers Non-Black Teachers
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
N Overall
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
School Year 1995-96
All Schools 5,167 34.4 37.2 34.3 31.6 1,112 35.6 44.1 34.1 35.0 4,055 34.1 36.0 34.4 30.1
Elementary 2,800 33.8 38.4 34.0 27.4 573 37.4 44.7 36.9 34.2 2,227 32.9 37.2 33.3 24.6Middle 1,102 30.2 33.0 28.8 33.6 273 27.1 44.8 24.7 25.9 829 31.2 31.1 30.2 39.2
High 1,086 39.7 40.5 40.1 37.8 214 37.9 36.4 38.1 38.3 872 40.1 41.3 40.6 37.6Special Programs 179 38.0 30.6 50.0 33.3 52 51.9 71.4 50.0 48.6 127 32.3 23.8 50.0 18.9
School Year 1996-97
All Schools 5,466 33.6 36.4 33.7 30.1 1,168 34.8 40.7 32.5 37.6 4,298 33.3 35.7 34.0 26.3
Elementary 2,924 32.9 38.3 33.3 24.9 564 36.4 40.6 35.7 36.1 2,360 32.1 37.9 32.7 20.4Middle 1,150 28.2 30.1 27.5 30.1 311 28.6 36.7 26.4 32.8 839 28.1 29.0 27.9 28.0
High 1,212 39.2 38.5 40.1 37.2 236 34.8 44.1 31.3 36.6 976 40.3 37.7 42.0 37.5Special Programs 180 41.1 32.7 52.5 37.7 57 52.6 42.9 57.1 52.8 123 35.8 31.1 51.1 21.2
School Year 1997-98
All Schools 5,749 33.2 36.2 33.5 29.6 1,166 33.6 37.3 32.8 34.3 4,583 33.1 36.0 33.7 27.6
Elementary 2,906 31.2 37.8 31.4 26.8 532 36.5 35.8 36.3 37.4 2,374 30.6 38.1 30.3 23.6Middle 1,228 28.5 27.0 29.4 26.3 312 26.0 23.3 26.9 24.3 916 29.4 27.5 30.3 27.5
High 1,433 39.2 45.5 39.4 35.0 266 33.8 64.3 31.8 32.9 1,167 40.5 43.2 40.9 36.1Special Programs 182 43.4 38.6 50.0 41.8 56 48.2 57.1 46.7 47.1 126 41.3 36.0 51.2 36.4
Access to AP courses by Race and Ethnicity. Detroit Metro Area 1995-1998
Table 4. AP Courses Offered By Public High Schools in the Detroit Metro Area
Racial Percentage Distribution of Students in Schools by AP Courses Offered SY95-98
Senior Application Rate to U of M, SY 95-98 Number
of AP Courses Offered
Maximum1 CFactor Points
Possible Under
SCUGA Guidelines
Number of High Schools Black Asian
American Indians Hispanic White Black Hispanic White
None -1 24 38 8 11 29 4 2.16 3.89 2.28 1 0 14 20 3 9 13 6 2.86 6.19 2.83
2-3 1 25 13 10 25 11 14 3.67 7.05 2.16 4-5 2 29 18 14 27 16 22 7.53 7.89 3.32 6-7 3 13 2 4 9 8 12 1.89 3.90 2.15
8-19 4 42 9 61 19 22 41 7.75 22.26 9.37
Total N 147 186,915 14,646 5,040 11,499 495,006 Information on AP Courses from Detroit Free Press
1. The documentation for the C Factor indicates that a “-1” can be awarded for some course-taking patterns. In actuality, there is some ambiguity as to the extent to which such a score is used .
1
Honors and AP Courses by High School
Table 5. Distribution of Honors and AP Courses by High School, School Years 1996-2000, SFUSD High School
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Honors Courses
AP Courses
School % Black or Latino
Honors Courses
AP Courses
School % Black or Latino
Honors Courses
AP Courses
School % Black or Latino
Honors Courses
AP Courses
School % Black or Latino
Honors Courses
AP Courses
School % Black or Latino
Balboa 5 1 50.56 0 0 48.37 7 2 46.15 4 2 46.51 6 3 48.55
Burton 13 7 44.94 15 7 48.28 12 5 49.28 13 6 46.96 13 5 46.63
Downtown 0 0 79.05 0 0 77.83 0 0 77.00 0 0 72.77 0 0 72.77
Galileo 14 4 23.51 13 6 25.15 12 5 24.36 16 9 23.75 14 8 22.79
Gateway . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 30.10 0 0 39.46
Independence 0 0 45.97 0 0 49.59 0 0 49.86 0 0 47.00 0 0 49.40
International Studies Academy 4 3 47.40 3 2 46.28 4 4 45.60 8 4 49.48 6 3 53.85
Leadership . 0 0 . 0 0 34.15 0 0 45.60 0 0 49.43
Life Learning Academy . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 77.78 0 0 72.73
Lincoln 14 5 16.90 12 5 15.48 13 6 13.96 13 6 11.04 13 9 11.41
Lowell 16 21 14.05 18 21 15.04 16 22 14.62 17 24 14.93 16 24 13.18
Marshall 0 0 40.07 0 0 44.95 5 9 40.87 6 6 43.84 5 9 44.95
McAteer 8 3 53.47 8 6 54.14 10 6 51.39 9 6 53.16 9 5 52.86
Mission 4 3 52.27 3 2 54.99 2 1 57.03 8 2 58.37 7 6 61.16
Newcomer 0 0 35.15 0 0 27.03 0 0 9.20 0 0 31.22 0 0 36.61
O'Connell 0 0 56.90 1 0 54.84 0 0 56.83 0 0 56.56 1 0 58.62
School of the Arts 3 4 26.09 3 5 25.55 3 6 25.69 3 4 26.75 2 5 28.11
Twain 0 0 44.30 0 0 40.54 0 0 36.65 0 0 30.22 0 0 29.15
Wallenberg 6 10 28.32 6 10 31.76 4 8 33.87 4 8 32.84 4 6 30.70
Washington 16 10 15.31 16 12 14.29 18 13 14.81 17 11 12.31 14 12 12.01
Wells 0 0 61.42 0 0 57.55 0 0 63.16 0 0 68.20 0 0 67.32
Equity and Assessment
These correlates of school racial composition and differential access to high quality teachers and curriculum are associated with low and or poor performance on a variety of assessments.
TABLEEnd of Grade Math Test Percent Low Mastery by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
All Students Black Students Non-Black StudentsRacially
Identifiable-White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
School Year 1995-96
All Schools 21.8 33.1 54.9 55.0 55.4 61.9 15.4 17.6 38.7
Elementary 22.8 33.1 48.1 59.7 55.6 53.8 16.7 17.9 34.3Middle 19.4 33.0 60.5 51.5 55.0 69.6 13.2 17.0 42.7
Special Programs 24.9 - 90.9 44.0 - 94.0 12.6 - 73.3
School Year 1996-97
All Schools 20.2 34.3 54.9 55.0 56.1 61.5 14.2 18.3 37.2
Elementary 19.6 33.1 49.1 57.3 54.7 55.2 14.8 17.5 33.1Middle 19.6 36.0 61.6 53.7 58.3 69.1 13.2 19.5 41.8
Special Programs 30.1 - 90.0 51.5 - 92.2 14.9 - 79.5
School Year 1997-98
All Schools 16.6 31.1 46.3 47.7 50.5 53.4 11.6 16.1 29.9
Elementary 15.8 31.3 41.9 49.4 50.3 49.2 11.4 16.1 25.4Middle 16.4 30.8 51.2 43.9 50.7 57.9 11.5 16.0 36.5
Special Programs 29.7 - 82.7 52.9 - 87.6 15.3 - 65.9
Grades 3 through 8 Insufficient or inconsistent mastery None of the 3rd through 8th grade children in the balanced special program schools took end of grade tests.
TABLEEnd of Grade Reading Test Percent Low Mastery by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
All Students Black Students Non-Black StudentsRacially
Identifiable-White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
RaciallyIdentifiable-
White
InCompliance
RaciallyIdentifiable-
Black
School Year 1995-96
All Schools 25.6 36.9 59.1 59.1 59.0 65.9 19.2 21.7 43.2
Elementary 27.2 37.6 57.7 63.4 60.2 64.4 21.2 22.5 41.6Middle 21.7 35.8 56.6 55.2 57.1 63.4 15.3 20.2 43.1
Special Programs 30.6 - 88.8 50.9 - 91.0 17.3 - 76.2
School Year 1996-97
All Schools 21.8 36.7 59.8 54.8 57.7 65.7 16.2 21.4 43.8
Elementary 22.6 37.0 57.4 58.1 58.2 63.4 18.1 21.8 41.7Middle 19.4 36.2 60.1 53.4 56.8 65.9 12.9 20.8 45.0
Special Programs 27.9 - 91.6 48.5 - 93.7 13.5 - 80.6
School Year 1997-98
All Schools 16.9 31.4 46.4 47.2 49.9 52.6 12.0 17.3 32.4
Elementary 17.3 31.8 43.8 47.8 50.2 50.1 13.4 17.3 29.5Middle 15.0 30.9 48.4 45.5 49.4 53.8 9.4 17.1 17.1
Special Programs 26.0 - 78.4 50.0 - 85.8 11.7 - 51.3
Grades 3 through 8 Insufficient or inconsistent mastery None of the 3rd through 8th grade children in the balanced special program schools took end of grade tests.
Table 5. Odds Ratio of Black or Hispanic U.S. Public High School Students Experiencing Placement in Gifted Programs, Special Education or being Suspended or Expelled, SY 2000 - 2001
High School Percent Black & Hispanic
Being Labeled Gifted & Talented
Being in Special
Education
BeingSuspended
Being Expelled
< 1% .63 1.13 1.35 1.43
1 - 5% .51 1.13 1.52 1.96
6 - 25% .41 1.35 1.67 1.71
26 – 50% .46 1.28 1.39 1.44
51 – 75% .56 1.12 1.18 1.18
76 – 100% .87 1.01 1.03 1.01
Includes only high schools in the 50 states plus D.C. Information on school level and student racial composition comes from the Common Core of Data 2000 (except where missing OCR data was substituted). gifted, special education, suspension, and expulsion data comes from the 2000 OCR survey.
Table 6. Odds Ratio of Black or Hispanic U.S. Public High School Students Experiencing Placement in Gifted Programs, Special Education or being Suspended or Expelled in High or Low Poverty Schools, SY 2000-2001
High School Percent Black & Hispanic
Being Labeled Gifted & Talented
Being in Special
Education
Being Suspende
d
Being Expelled
High Poverty
Low Poverty
High Poverty
Low Poverty
High Poverty
Low Poverty
High Poverty
Low Poverty
< 1% .82 .58 .98 1.18 1.56 1.25 2.27 1.22
1 - 5% .55 .50 1.10 1.15 1.41 1.58 1.74 2.03
6 - 25% .39 .43 1.27 1.37 1.53 1.71 1.66 1.71
26 – 50% .46 .47 1.27 1.30 1.37 1.42 1.43 1.46
51 – 75% .56 .59 1.12 1.11 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.21
76 – 100% .88 .83 1.01 .97 1.03 1.00 1.02 .95
Includes only high schools in the 50 states plus D.C. Information on school level and student racial composition comes from the Common Core of Data 2000 (except where missing OCR data was substituted). gifted, special education, suspension, and expulsion data comes from the 2000 OCR survey.
Percent Special Education and Gifted: Blacks
Percentage of Special Ed and Gifted
Children Who Are Black, SFUSD
School Year
Per
cent40
30
20
10
0
Enrollment Pct
Special Ed Pct
Gifted Pct
Percent Special Education and Gifted: Latino
Percentage of Special Ed and Gifted
Children Who Are Latino SFUSD
School Year
Perc
en
t40
30
20
10
0
Enrollment Pct
Special Ed Pct
Gifted Pct
Percent Special Education and Gifted: Whites
Percentage of Special Ed and Gifted
Children Who Are White, SFUSD
School Year
Per
cent
40
30
20
10
0
Enrollment Pct
Special Ed Pct
Gifted Pct
Equity and Assessment
These conditions are just some of those that challenge useful and effective assessment of student learning.
Following are recommendations from NRC reports that can help guide good assessment practices in the face of these challenges.
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
What teachers teach and what students learn vary widely by track, with those in lower tracks receiving far less than a world-class curriculum. If world-class standards were suddenly adopted, student failure would be unacceptably high (Linn, 1998a).
Recommendation: Accountability for educational outcomesshould be a shared responsibility of states, school districts,public officials, educators, parents, and students. High standardscannot be established and maintained merely by imposingthem on students.
Recommendation: If parents, educators, public officials, andothers who share responsibility for educational outcomes areto discharge their responsibility effectively, they should haveaccess to information about the nature and interpretation oftests and test scores. Such information should be made avail-ableto the public and should be incorporated into teachereducation and into educational programs for principals, administrators,public officials, and others.
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: A test may appropriately be used to lead
curricular reform, but it should not also be used to make high-stakes
decisions about individual students until test users can
show that the test measures what they have been taught.
Recommendation: Test users should avoid simple either-or
options when high-stakes tests and other indicators show that
students are doing poorly in school, in favor of strategies combining
early intervention and effective remediation of learning problems.
Recommendation: High-stakes decisions such as tracking, pro-motion,
and graduation should not automatically be made onthe basis of a single test score but should be buttressed by
otherrelevant information about the student’s knowledge and skills,such as grades, teacher recommendations, and extenuating
circumstances.
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: In general, large-scale assessments shouldnot be used to make high-stakes decisions about students
whoare less than 8 years old or enrolled below grade 3.
Recommendation: All students are entitled to sufficient testpreparation so their performance will not be adversely affectedby unfamiliarity with item format or by ignorance of appropriatetest-taking strategies. Test users should balance efforts toprepare students for a particular test format against the possibilitythat excessively narrow preparation will invalidate testoutcomes.
Recommendation: High-stakes testing programs should routinelyinclude a well-designed evaluation component. Policy-makersshould monitor both the intended and unintended con-sequencesof high-stakes assessments on all students and onsignificant subgroups of students, including minorities, English-language learners, and students with disabilities.
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: As tracking is currently practiced, low-track
classes are typically characterized by an exclusive focus
on basic skills, low expectations, and the least-qualified teachers.
Students assigned to low-track classes are worse off than
they would be in other placements. This form of tracking
should be eliminated. Neither test scores nor other information
Recommendation: Since tracking decisions are basically placement
decisions, tests and other information used for this purpose
should meet professional test standards regarding placement.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
TRACKING
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Tests and other information used in promotion
decisions may be interpreted either as evidence of mastery
of material already taught or as evidence of student readiness
for material at the next grade level. In the former case,
test content should be representative of the curriculum at the
current grade level. In the latter case, test scores should predict
the likely educational effects of future placements—
whether promotion, retention in grade, or some other intervention
options.
Recommendation: If a cut score is to be employed on a test
used in making a promotion decision, the quality of the standard-
setting process should be documented and evaluated—
including the qualification of the judges employed, the method
or methods employed, and the degree of consensus reached.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
PROMOTION AND RETENTION
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Students who fail should have the opportunityto retake any test used in making promotion decisions;this implies that tests used in making promotion decisionsshould have alternate forms.
Recommendation: Test users should avoid the simple either-oroption to promote or retain in grade when high-stakes testsand other indicators show that students are doing poorly inschool, in favor of strategies combining early identification andeffective remediation of learning problems.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
PROMOTION AND RETENTION
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: As tracking is currently practiced, low-track
classes are typically characterized by an exclusive focus
on basic skills, low expectations, and the least-qualified teachers.
Students assigned to low-track classes are worse off than
they would be in other placements. This form of tracking
should be eliminated. Neither test scores nor other information
Recommendation: Since tracking decisions are basically placement
decisions, tests and other information used for this purpose
should meet professional test standards regarding placement.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
TRACKING
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: More research is needed to enable studentswith disabilities to participate in large-scale assessments in waysthat provide valid information. This goal significantly challengescurrent knowledge and technology about measurementand test design and the infrastructure needed to achieve broad-basedparticipation.
Recommendation: The needs of students with disabilitiesshould be considered throughout the test development process.
Recommendation: Decisions about how students with disabilitieswill participate in large-scale assessments should beguided by criteria that are as systematic and objective as possible.They should also be applied on a case-by-case basis aspart of the child’s individual education program and consistentwith the instructional accommodations that the child receives.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: If a student with disabilities is subject toan assessment used for promotion or graduation decisions, theIEP team should ensure that the curriculum and instructionreceived by the student through the individual education pro-gramis aligned with test content and that the student has hadadequate opportunity to learn the material covered by the test.
Recommendation: Students who cannot participate in a large-scaleassessment should have alternate ways of demonstratingproficiency.
Recommendation: Because a test score may not be a validrepresentation of the skills and achievement of students withdisabilities, high-stakes decisions about these students shouldconsider other sources of evidence such as grades, teacher recommendations,and other examples of student work.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: As tracking is currently practiced, low-track
classes are typically characterized by an exclusive focus
on basic skills, low expectations, and the least-qualified teachers.
Students assigned to low-track classes are worse off than
they would be in other placements. This form of tracking
should be eliminated. Neither test scores nor other information
Recommendation: Since tracking decisions are basically placement
decisions, tests and other information used for this purpose
should meet professional test standards regarding placement.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
TRACKING
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Systematic research that investigates the
impact of specific accommodations on the test performance of
both English-language learners and other students is needed.
Accommodations should be investigated to see whether they
reduce construct-irrelevant sources of variance for English-language
learners without disadvantaging other students who
do not receive accommodations. The relationship of test accommodations
to instructional accommodations should also be
studied.
Recommendation: Development and implementation of alternative
measures, such as primary-language assessments,
should be accompanied by information regarding the validity,
reliability, and comparability of scores on primary-language
and English assessments.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: The learning and language needs of English-
language learners should be considered during test development.
Recommendation: Policy decisions about how individual English-
language learners will participate in large-scale assessments—
such as the language and accommodations to be used—
should balance the demands of political accountability with
professional standards of good testing practice. These standards
require evidence that such accommodations or alternate
forms of assessment lead to valid inferences regarding performance.
Recommendation: States, school districts, and schools should
report and interpret disaggregated assessment scores of English-
language learners when psychometrically sound for the
purpose of analyzing their educational outcomes.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Placement decisions based on tests should
incorporate information about educational accomplishments,
particularly literacy skills, in the primary language. Certification
tests (e.g., for high school graduation) should be designed
to reflect state or local deliberations and decisions about the
role of English-language proficiency in the construct to be
assessed. This allows for subject-matter assessment in English
only, in the primary language, or using a test that accommodates
English-language learners by providing English-language
assistance, primary language support, or both.
Recommendation: As for all learners, interpretation of the
test scores of English-language learners for promotion or graduation
should be accompanied by information about opportunities
to master the material tested. For English-language learners,
this includes information about educational history,
exposure to instruction in the primary language and in English,
language resources in the home, and exposure to the main-stream
curriculum.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: As tracking is currently practiced, low-track
classes are typically characterized by an exclusive focus
on basic skills, low expectations, and the least-qualified teachers.
Students assigned to low-track classes are worse off than
they would be in other placements. This form of tracking
should be eliminated.
Neither test scores nor other information should ever be used to assign children to inefficacious treatments.
Recommendation: Since tracking decisions are basically placement
decisions, tests and other information used for this purpose
should meet professional test standards regarding placement.
APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION
TRACKING
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Systematic research that investigates the
impact of specific accommodations on the test performance of
both English-language learners and other students is needed.
Accommodations should be investigated to see whether they
reduce construct-irrelevant sources of variance for English-language
learners without disadvantaging other students who
do not receive accommodations. The relationship of test accommodations
to instructional accommodations should also be studied.
Recommendation: Development and implementation of alternative
measures, such as primary-language assessments,
should be accompanied by information regarding the validity,
reliability, and comparability of scores on primary-language
and English assessments.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: The learning and language needs of English-
language learners should be considered during test development.
Recommendation: Policy decisions about how individual English-
language learners will participate in large-scale assessments—
such as the language and accommodations to be used—
should balance the demands of political accountability with
professional standards of good testing practice. These standards
require evidence that such accommodations or alternate
forms of assessment lead to valid inferences regarding performance.
Recommendation: States, school districts, and schools should
report and interpret disaggregated assessment scores of English-
language learners when psychometrically sound for the
purpose of analyzing their educational outcomes.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations
Recommendation: Placement decisions based on tests should
incorporate information about educational accomplishments,
particularly literacy skills, in the primary language. Certification
tests (e.g., for high school graduation) should be designed
to reflect state or local deliberations and decisions about the
role of English-language proficiency in the construct to be
assessed. This allows for subject-matter assessment in English
only, in the primary language, or using a test that accommodates
English-language learners by providing English-language
assistance, primary language support, or both.
Recommendation: As for all learners, interpretation of the
test scores of English-language learners for promotion or graduation
should be accompanied by information about opportunities
to master the material tested. For English-language learners,
this includes information about educational history,
exposure to instruction in the primary language and in English,
language resources in the home, and exposure to the main-stream
curriculum.
FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Equity and AssessmentResource materials from the National Academies
• High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation (1998)
• Testing English-Language Learners in U.S. Schools: Report and Workshop Summary (2000)
• Understanding Dropouts: Statistics Strategies and High Stakes Testing (2001)
Recommended