In this essay the author argues that test security in student testing is a practice of questionable morality and efficacy, despite the long-standing use of the practice by test-makers. Arguing that the practice is an unthinking immoral habit, with its roots in premodern medieval views of the teacher-student relationship, the author proposes that new policies and practices be formulated to protect the inherently vulnerable student in the same way that laws now protect adult test-takers and experimentees. The author argues that secrecy priorto, during, and after a test be scrutinized carefully and minimized through the use of explicit principles-an assessment Bill of Rights-that put the students' rights on a par with those of the test-maker and that honor the modem rights of informed consent and due process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berk, R. A.
(Ed.). (1986). Performance assessment methods and applications. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Berryman, S.
(1990). Sending clear signals to schools and labor markets. In J. L. Schwartz & K. A. Viator (Eds.), The prices of secrecy: The social, intellectual, and psychological costs of testing in America (pp. 35-45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Educational Technology Center.
3.
Bok, S.
(1983). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. New York: Random House.
4.
Department of Education
[New Zealand]. (1989). Assessment for better learning: A public discussion document. Wellington, NZ: Author.
5.
Department of Education and Science
. (1988). Task group on assessment and testing report (TGAT). London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
6.
Feuer, M. J.
, Fulton, K., & Morison, P. (1993). Better tests and testing practices: Options for policy makers. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(7), 530-535.
Foucault, M.
(1977). Discipline & punish. New York: Vintage.
9.
Fredriksen, J. R.
, & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27-32.
10.
Haney, W.
, & Madaus, G. (1991). The evolution of ethical and technical standards for testing. In R. K. Hambleton &J. N. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing: Theory and application (pp. 395-425). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
11.
Highland, R. W.
(1955). A guide for use in performance testing in airforce technical schools. Lowry Air Force Base, CO: Armament Systems Personnel Research Laboratory.
12.
Lewis, N.
(1981). Hans Andersen's fairy tales: A new translation. London: Puffin.
13.
Millman, J.
, & Greene, J. (1989). The specification and development of tests of achievement and ability. In R. L Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 335-366). New York: Macmillan.
14.
Piaget, J.
(1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1932)
15.
Piaget, J.
(1974). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed., M. Gabain, Trans.). New York: New American library.
16.
Schwartz, J. L.
, & Viator, K. A. (Eds.). (1990). The prices of secrecy: The social intellectual and psychological costs of testing in America [Report to the Ford Foundation]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Educational Technology Center.
17.
Stiggins, R.
(1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 534-539.
18.
Wiggins, G.
(1990). Secure tests, insecure test-takers. In J. L Schwartz & K. A. Viator (Eds.), A report to the Ford Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Education Technology Center.
19.
Wiggins, G.
(1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Zacharias, J.
(1979). The people should get what they want: An opfimistic view of what tests can be. National Elementary Principal, 58,4145.
