This article examines two kinds of problems associated with the English Language Arts test at the fourth-grade level in New York State: (1) problems that inhere in the test itself and (2) problems associated with its use. As for the test itself three kinds of problems are analyzed: (1) the use of multiple-choice tasks to assess reading comprehension, (2) the number of writing tasks that children must respond to within a limited time frame, and (3) the use of a rubric that contains unrealistic criteria. As for the use of the test, two kinds of problems are analyzed: (1) the use of coaching material that has not been properly vetted and (2) the discontinued use of broadly based assessment programs that complement testing with portfolio sampling of children's work. The conclusions offer recommendations for dealing with these problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronowitzR. (1984). Reading tests as texts. In TannenD. (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 43–62). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
2.
BabcockD. (2000). Comprehensive reading and writing assessment.Merrimack, NH: Options.
3.
BennettR. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5–12.
4.
BlackJ., & BowerG. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9, 223–250.
5.
BloomB. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives.New York: Longman.
6.
BraddockR. (1974). The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 287–302.
7.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Standards accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047–1085.
FeuersteinR., FalikL., & FeuersteinR. (1998). In SamudaR. (Ed.), Advances in cross-cultural assessment (pp. 100–161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
GeeJ. (1992). What is reading? Literacies, discourses, and domination. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies, 2, 65–77.
11.
GoodmanK. (1976). Miscue analysis: Theory and reality in reading. In MerrittJ. E. (Ed.), New horizons in reading: Proceedings of the Fifth International Reading Association World Congress on Reading (pp. 15–26). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
12.
HayesT., & McCartneyN. (1997). An analysis of the Progressive Achievement Tests of Reading. Unpublished manuscript.
13.
HeubertJ., & HauserR. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
HillC. (1992). Testing and assessment: An ecological approach (Inaugural lecture for the Arthur I. Gates Chair in Language and Education).New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
15.
HillC. (1995). Testing and assessment: An applied linguistics perspective. Educational Assessment, 2, 179–212.
16.
HillC. (1999). A national reading test for fourth graders: A missing component in the policy debate. In PreseissenB. (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence I (pp. 129–152). Chicago, IL: Skylight Publishing.
17.
HillC. (2000a, March 18). Practicing without learning [Op-ed article]. The New York Times, p. A15.
18.
HillC. (2000b). The Progress Profile: Constructivist assessment in early childhood education. In CostaA. L. (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence II (pp. 211–230). Chicago: Skylight Publishing.
19.
HillC. (2001). Linguistic and cultural diversity: A growing challenge to American education.New York: College Board.
20.
HillC. (2003). Integrating digital tools into a culturally diverse curriculum: An assessment model for the Pacesetter Program. Teachers College Record, 10, 278–296.
21.
HillC., & LarsenE. (2000). Children and reading tests.Stamford, CT: Ablex.
22.
HillC., & ParryK. (1989). Autonomous and pragmatic models of literacy: Reading assessment in adult education. Linguistics and Education, 1, 223–289.
23.
HillC., & ParryK. (1992). The test at the gate: Models of literacy in reading assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 433–461.
24.
HillC., & ParryK. (1994). From testing to assessment: English as an international language.Harlow, UK: Longman.
25.
JohnstonP. (1984). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26.
KleinS. P., HamiltonL. S., McCaffreyD. F., & StetcherB. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us?Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.
KoretzD., & BarronS. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-1014-EDU).Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
28.
KoretzD., LinnR. L., DunbarS. B., & ShepardL. A. (1991, April). The effects of high-stakes testing: Preliminary evidence about generalization across tests. In LinnR. L. (Chair), The effects of high stakes testing. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
29.
New York State Testing Program. (2002a). English language arts, Book 1 (Grade 4).Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
30.
New York State Testing Program. (2002b). English language arts, Book 2 (Grade 4).Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
31.
New York State Testing Program. (2002c). Listening selection (Grade 4).Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
32.
New York State Testing Program. (2002d). Listening: Scoring guide and scorer practice set (English Language Arts, Grade 4).Albany, NY: New York State Education Department.
33.
New York State Testing Program. (2002e). Reading: Scoring guide and scorer practice set (English Language Arts, Grade 4).Albany, NY: New York State Education Department.
34.
RussellM., & AbramsL. (2004). Instructional uses of computers for writing: The effect of state testing programs. Teachers College Record, 106, 1332–1357.
35.
StecherB. M., BarronS., KaganoffT., & GoodwinJ. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996–97 RAND Survey of Kentucky Teachers of Mathematics and Writing (CSE Technical Report 482).Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
36.
ThorndikeE. (1915). An improved scale for measuring ability in reading. Teachers College Record, 16, 31–53, 445–467.
37.
TrabassoT. (1981). On the making of inferences during reading and their assessment. In GuthrieJ. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 56–75). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
38.
van DijkT. A., & KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York: Academic Press.
39.
WangH., & HillC. (1999). Short-answer questions in College English testing. In TengY. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and English learning strategies (pp. 317–338). Nanjing, China: Nanjing University Press.
40.
WigginsG. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41–47.
