In recent years, accountability sys tems have gained considerable strength through the introduction of high stakes consequences for poor student performance. As a result, administrators must resist the pres sure to alter sound educational prac tices to increase test scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Datta, L. "If 'How To Improve Schools' Is the Question, Are Tests Part of the Answer?" In Measurement, Guidance and Program Improvement: Proceedings of the 1981 ETS Invitational Conference, edited by W. B. Schrader. New Directions for Testing and Measurement, No. 13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
2.
Haney, W. "We Must Take Care: Fitting Assessments to Functions." In Expanding Student Assessment, edited by V Perrone.Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1991.
3.
Lambeth, L. "Pomp, No; Circumstances, Yes." Denton Record-Chronicle , May 31, 1992.
4.
Madaus, G.F. "The Distortion of Teaching and Testing: High-Stakes Testing and Instruction ." Peabody Journal of Education, Spring 1988 .
5.
Ornstein, A.C. "The Evolving Accountability Movement." Peabody Journal of Education, Spring 1988.
6.
Kennedy, M.M.; Apling, R.; and Neuman, W.F.The Role of Evaluation and Test Information in thePublic Schools. Cambridge, Mass.: The Huron Institute, 1980.
7.
Popham, W.J.; Cruise, K.L.; Rankin, S.C.; Sandifer, P.D.; and Williams, P.L. "Measurement-Driven Instruction: It's on the Road." Phi Delta Kappan, May 1985.
8.
Salganik, L.H. "Why Testing Reforms Are So Popular and How They are Changing Education ." Phi Delta Kappan, May 1985.
