In many public school districts, standardized test scores have become the focus of accountability systems. Little has been done to help schools and teachers understand the connection between test scores and day-to-day classroom practices, however, and without this understanding, score-based accountability systems will not lead to meaningful educational reform. This article describes the Erikson Institute Schools Project’s efforts to use analyses of standardized test scores as the entry point for an assessment and intervention process aimed at improving school curricula and instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anyon, J. (1995). Inner-city school reform: Toward useful theory. Urban Education, 30, 56-70.
2.
Brown, D. F. (1993, April). The political influence of state testing reform through the eyes of principals and teachers. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360737)
3.
Bryant, N. (1998). Reducing the relational distance between actors: A case study in school reform. Urban Education, 33, 34-49.
4.
Bryk, A. S. , Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Academic productivity of Chicago public elementary schools. Chicago: The Consortium on Chicago School Research.
5.
Chen, J. Q. , & Gardner, H. (1997). Alternative assessment from a multiple intelligences theoretical perspective. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging theories, tests, and issues (pp. 105-121). New York: Guilford.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 220-225.
7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
8.
Darling-Hammond, L. , & Lieberman, A. (1992, January 29). The shortcomings of standardized tests. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1-B2.
9.
FairTest . (1992). Position paper: What’s wrong with standardized tests? (Available from the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 342 Broadway, Cambridge, MA, 02139). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352374)
10.
FairTest . (1997, Spring). Mobilization for equity. FairTest Examiner, 1-2.
11.
Feldman, S. (1998). AFT’s role: Bringing vitality to teaching. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 19-20.
12.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
Heller, J. I. , Sheingold, K., Nunez, A., & Paulukonis, S. T. (1998, April). Teacher’s interpretations of class-level student performance profiles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
14.
Herman, J. L. , Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15.
Heywood, J. S. , Thomas, M., & White, S. B. (1997). Does classroom mobility hurt stable students? An examination of achievement in urban schools. Urban Education, 32, 354-372.
16.
Krechevsky, M. (1998). Project Spectrum: Preschool assessment handbook. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Meisels, S. J. (1997). Using working sampling in authentic assessment. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 60-65.
18.
National Association for the Education of Young Children . (1988). NAEYC position statement on standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age. Young Children, 43(3), 42-47.
19.
National Commission on Excellence in Education . (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Neill, D. M. (1997). Transforming student assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 9, 34-58.
21.
Ogle, D. , & Fritts, J. B. (1981). Criterion-referenced reading assessment valuable for process as well as for data. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 640-641.
22.
Olson, L. (1998, February 11). The push for accountability gathers steam. Education Week [Online], 17. Available: www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/22accoun.h17
23.
Resnick, L. B. (1981). Introduction: Research to inform a debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 623-624.
24.
Reyni, J. (1998). Building learning into the teaching job. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 70-74.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging theories, tests, and issues (pp. 92-104). New York: Guilford.
27.
Stevenson, H. W. , & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we an learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
28.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Wood, C. M. (1982). The role of standardized achievement tests in the management of instruction: Survey of teacher and administrator practices and attitudes. (Technical Report, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219446)
