Policy discussions in the U.S. and abroad have become increasingly studded with reference to the results of international tests like PISA. Unlike most assessments, PISA is not designed to measure whether students have mastered a particular school curriculum but rather provide a measure of students’ ability to meet future challenges irrespective of where in the world they live. Though growing in influence, the concept of a “contextless” form of accountability has an important antecedent in the history of American education: the Tests of General Educational Development (GED), which were developed in the 1940s to assist the transition of American World War II servicemen and women.
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to use the history of the development and subsequent spread of the GED examine the general challenge posed by contextless accountability measures.
Research Design
This study draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a historical analysis of the development and diffusion of the Tests of General Educational Development.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Noting the strong parallels between the history of the GED and the current popularity of international measures like PISA, this paper examines the history and development of the GED in order investigate the allure, promise, and pitfalls of contextless assessment and accountability. In so doing, this paper illustrates the importance of quantification as a means of creating useful abstractions but also the inherent danger of the perceived certainty of these kinds of metrics. In the decades following the 1940s, the GED retained its reputation as an objective, readily available, measure of high school achievement that could be used in any context and with any population—a task it was never intended or designed to fulfill. Thus, this paper argues, the American experience with the GED offers important lessons and insights in a world where PISA continues the reign of contextless, test-based accountability systems. Namely, that the level of abstraction required to develop these measures makes them ill-suited to inform the kind of specific policy discussion in which they are frequently invoked.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltschulerG. C., & BluminS. M. (2009). The GI Bill: A new deal for veterans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Council on Education. (1943). Sound credit. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
3.
American Council on Education. (1945). Tests of General Educational Development (high school level) examiner's manual. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
4.
American Council on Education. (1946). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations.Washington, DC: The Commission on the Accreditation of Service Experience.
5.
BiestaG. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.
6.
BloomB. (1956). 1955 normative study of the Tests of General Educational Development. The School Review, 64(3), 110–124.
7.
BloomB., & StatlerC. (1957). Changes in the states on the Tests of General Educational Development from 1943 to 1955. The School Review, 65(2), 204–221.
8.
CarsonJ. (2007). The measure of merit: Talents, intelligence, and inequality in the French and American republics, 1750-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
9.
Commission on Accreditation of Service Education. (1946). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
10.
Commission on Accreditation of Service Education. (1951). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
11.
Commission on Accreditation of Service Education. (1956). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
12.
Commission on Accreditation of Service Education. (1960). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
13.
Commission on Accreditation of Service Education. (1972). Accreditation policies of state departments of education for the evaluation of service experiences and USAFI examinations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
14.
ChartersW. W. (1947). Techniques of giving and taking advice: USAFI's Advisory Committee. Educational Record, 28, 5–20.
15.
Council of State Governments. (1952). Occupational licensing legislation in the states. Chicago: Council of State Governments.
16.
Council on Foreign Relations, KleinJ. I., RiceC., & LevyJ. (2012). U. S. education reform and national security. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force.
FeldtL. (1979). Everett F. Lindquist 1901-1978 a retrospective review of his contributions to educational research. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 4(1), 4–13.
19.
GerkS. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA “effect” in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.
20.
GouldS. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man: Revised and expanded. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
HeckmanJ. J., & LaFontaineP. A. (2010). The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244–262.
23.
HessW. (1946). State requirements for a high school diploma for the veteran. NASSP Bulletin, 30, 92–144.
24.
HuttE. L., (2012). Formalism over function: Compulsion, courts, and the rise of educational formalism in America, 1870–1930. Teachers College Record, 114(1), 1–27.
25.
Journal of Higher Education. (1946). Editorial comments. The Journal of Higher Education, 17, 331–338.
26.
KettJ. F. (2013). Merit: The history of a founding ideal from the American revolution to the twenty-first century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
27.
KliebardH. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
28.
KupiainenS., HautamakiJ., & KarjalainenT. (2009). The Finnish education system and Pisa. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
29.
LindquistE. F. (1940). Statistical analysis in educational research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
30.
LindquistE. F. (1944). The use of tests in the accreditation of military experience and in the educational placement of war veterans. Educational Record, 25, 357–376
31.
LossC. (2012). Between citizens and the state: The politics of American higher education in the 20th Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
Maryland State Board of Education. (1945). Seventy Ninth Annual Report State Board of Education of Maryland, 1945. Baltimore: Maryland State Board of Education.
33.
MettlerS. (2005). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
MoselJ. (1954). The General Educational Development of Tests (high school level) as a predictor of educational level and mental ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 133.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
36.
OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing.
37.
PetersonJ. J. (1983). The Iowa testing programs: The first fifty years. University of Iowa Press.
RoseA. (1991) Preparing for veterans: Higher education and the efforts to accredit the learning of World War II servicemen and women. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(1), 30–45.
42.
SkocpolT. (1995). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
43.
SkrentnyJ. (1996). The ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, culture, and justice in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
SmithM. (1947). Populational characteristics of American servicemen in World War II. The Scientific Monthly, 65(3), 246–252.
46.
SmithM. (1958). How to teach the California child: Notes from the Never-Never Land. Atlantic Monthly, 202, 32–36.
47.
StinchcombeA. L. (2001). When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
SwansonC., & ChaplinD. (2003). Counting high school graduates when graduates count: Measuring graduation rates under the high stakes of NCLB. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
49.
TröhlerD. (2010). Harmonizing the educational globe: world polity, cultural features, and the challenges of educational research. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(1), 7–29.
50.
TröhlerD. (2011). Concepts, cultures, and comparisons: PISA and the double German discontentment. In TröhlerD. (Ed.), Languages of education: Protestant legacies, national identities, and global aspirations (pp. 194–207). London: Routledge.
51.
TylerR. (1944). Sound credit for military experience. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 231, 58–64
52.
Tyler, R., & Institute United States Armed Forces. (1956). Conclusions and recommendations on a study of the General Educational Development Testing Program. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
53.
TurnerC. P. (1949). Accreditation by means of tests. In WilliamsonE. G. (Ed.), Trends in sudent personnel work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
54.
Veterans’ Testing Service. (1959). 1959 annual report of the Veterans’ Testing Service, High School Level GED Testing. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
55.
WagnerT. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need—And what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.
56.
WeeksC. (1967). Job Corps; dollars and dropouts. Boston: Little, Brown.
57.
WeirM. (1988). The federal government and unemployment: The frustration of policy innovation from the New Deal to the Great Society. In WeirM., OrloffA. S., & SkocpolT. (Eds.), The politics of social policy in the United States (pp. 149–190). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
