This study examines the consequences of a state-wide performance assessment program using Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). CBM reading and writing measures were administered three times during the school year in two fifth-grade classrooms that were participating in a state-wide school accountability program employing an extended performance task. We found significant gains in written expression but no progress in reading. We concluded that this finding probably reflected an increased amount of time spent in classroom writing activities in preparation for the performance assessment. Both CBM and performance assessment are viewed as important tools for building systemically valid classroom assessment programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Council of Chief State School Officers (1996 ). State Student Assessment Programs Database. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory .
2.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
3.
Frederiksen, J.R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18 (9), 27-32.
4.
Fuchs, L., & Deno, S. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptiortal Children, 57, 488-501.
5.
Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Connecting performance assessment to instruction . Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
6.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11 (3) 183-192.
7.
Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children , 24(3), 41-44.
8.
Linn, R.L., & Burton, E. (1994). Performance assessment: Implications of task specificity . Educational Measurentent: Issues and Practice, 13(1) 5-8.
9.
Linn, R.L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9) 4-14.
10.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Curnculum-based measurement: District level implementation . In J. Zinn, J. Graden, & M. Curtis (Eds.) Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 137-172). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
11.
McLaughlin, M.J., & Warren, S.H. (1994). Performance assessment and students with disabilities: usages in outcomes-based accountability systems. Reston , VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). New York: MacMillan .
13.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher , 23(2), 13-23.
14.
Miller, M.D., & Legg, S.M. (1993). Alternative assessment in a high-stakes environment . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(2), 9-15.
15.
Nitko, A.J. (1989). Designing tests that are integrated with instruction . In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 447-474). New York: MacMillan.
16.
Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 23-27.
17.
Shepard, L.A., Flexer, R.J.Hiebert, E.H., Marion, S.F., Mayfield, V., & Weston, T.J. (1995). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessment on student learning. CSE technical report 394. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
18.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Tindal, G., & Marston, D. (1990). Classroom-based assessment: Evaluating instructional outcomes. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
20.
Tindal, G.R. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement. In J. Zinn, J. Graden, & M. Curtis (Eds.). Alternative educational delivery systerm: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 111-136). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists .
21.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment ( 1992, February). Testing in American schools: asking the right questions (OTA-SET-519). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (ED 340 770).
22.
Weinstein, R.S. (1996). High standards in a tracked system of schooling: For which students and with what educational supports? Educational Research, 25(8), 16-19.
