This paper outlines a model for giving meaning to student achievement by referencing assessment to student learning or standards. This effectively shifts the focus in assessment from notions of rank ordering students (comparing their performance purely to each other) to those of monitoring growth or progress and measurement. More specifically it introduces standards-based assessment: the concept and theory. It considers how such systems operate and provides some possible strategies for implementation. Finally it shows how such systems can significantly impact upon human capital and capacity building in education.
BerkR. (1986). A consumer's guide to setting performance standards on criterion referenced Tests. Review of Educational Research.56, 137–172.
2.
BourdieuP. (1988). Homo Acamicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3.
ChoppinB. (1983). The Rasch model for item analysis, Report No. 219. Los Angeles, CA: Centre for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
4.
DonnellyK. (2000). New Zealand's National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA): An international perspective. Wellington: Daphne Brasell Associates.
5.
ElleyW. (2004, October). Facts and fallacies about standards-based assessment. Paper presented at the Cambridge International Conference, Cambridge.
6.
HambletonR.PlakeB. (1995). Using an extended Angoff procedure to set standards on complex performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 41–55.
7.
JaegerR. (1982). An iterative structured judgment process for establishing standards on competency tests: Theory and application. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 461–475.
8.
KellyR. (2005). 14–19 Education and Skills. White Paper presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Command 6476). London: HMSO.
9.
LiA.K.C.. (2004). Reforming the academic structure for senior secondary education and higher education. Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau.
10.
MannoB. (1994). Outcomes-based education: Miracle cure or plague? Hudson Institute Briefing Paper Number 165, June.
MorrisonH.BuschJ.D'ArcyJ. (1994). Setting reliable national curriculum standards: A guide to the Angoff procedure. Assessment in Education Vol.1, 181–199.
13.
NelsonB. (2005, September 25). Media release from the minister's office.
NorciniJ.LipnerR.LangdonL.StreckerC. (1987). A comparison of three variations on a standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 159–164.
16.
PeddieR. (1992). Beyond the norm. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority.
ShankerA. (1993, September 12). Outrageous outcomes [Where We Stand advertisement]. New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://nysut.org/shanker
19.
ShankerA. (1994, October 12). A do-it-yourself kit [Where We Stand advertisement]. New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://nysut.org/shanker
20.
StanleyG.MacCannR.G. (2005). Removing incentives for ‘dumbing down’ through curriculum re-structure and additional study time. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(2). Retrieved February 28, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n2/
21.
TognoliniJ.AndrichD.BallS. (2001). Report of the consultancy to research international best practice in outcomes-based assessment related to post-compulsory education. Perth, WA: Curricuum Council of Western Australia.
22.
WolfA. (1995). Competence-based assessment. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
