Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:57:01.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Edward H. Haertel
Affiliation:
Jacks Family Professor of Education, Stanford University
Pamela A. Moss
Affiliation:
Professor of education, University of Michigan School of Education
Diana C. Pullin
Affiliation:
Professor in the Lynch School of Education and an affiliate professor of law, Boston College
James Paul Gee
Affiliation:
Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies, Arizona State University
Pamela A. Moss
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Diana C. Pullin
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
James Paul Gee
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Edward H. Haertel
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Lauren Jones Young
Affiliation:
The Spencer Foundation, Chicago
Get access

Summary

The most pressing issue facing U.S. education may be providing all students with a fair opportunity to learn (OTL). Although most would embrace the goal of enhancing OTL, there are fundamental disagreements about how best to accomplish this and different understandings of the meaning of “opportunity to learn.” Historically, conceptions of OTL have been closely tied to the practice of testing. OTL has been conceptualized as opportunity to learn what is tested, and test-based accountability has been widely implemented as a means of enhancing OTL. In the United States, policy makers have embraced test-based accountability as a means of somehow forcing schools to bring “all children” to a “proficient” level of achievement. By law, tests must be “aligned” to rigorous “academic achievement standards.” Thus, standardized tests are relied upon to provide both the definition of successful learning and the means to assure that OTL is extended to all learners. Against this vision, many have criticized the conception of learning underlying large-scale testing programs and have argued that test-based accountability has, in fact, undermined many students' opportunities to learn.

It is rare to find any productive dialogue between the critics and the proponents of test-based accountability systems. By and large, testing advocates embrace a straightforward account of educational improvement. It is taken as a given that schools are doing a poor job – the goal of schooling is to impart skills to students, and it is common knowledge that many students graduate without having acquired the skills they need.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brennan, R. L. 2005. A perspective on psychometrics. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 3: 89–91.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 134–56.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., A. M. Collins, and L. B. Resnick. 1997. Cognition and learning. In Handbook of educational psychology, edited by Berliner, D. C. and Calfee, R. C., 15–47. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jordan, B. and Putz, P.. 2004. Assessment as practice: Notes on measures, tests, and targets. Human Organization 63(3): 346–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, M. 2001. Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., J. P. Gee, and P. A. Moss. In press. On qualitative and quantitative reasoning about assessment validity. In Generalizing from educational research: Beyond the quantitative–qualitative opposition, edited by Ercikan, K. and Roth, W.-M.. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., and Haniford, L. C.. 2006. Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education 30: 109–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. A., Pullin, D., Gee, J. P., and Haertel, E. H.. 2005. The idea of testing: Psychometric and sociocultural perspectives. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 3: 63–83.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2001. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, edited by Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R.. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B. and D. P. Resnick. 1992. Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction, edited by Gifford, B. R. and O'Connor, M. C., 37–75. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×