ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency

Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.

ERIC Development Team

www.eric.ed.gov

Table of Contents

If you're viewing this document online, you can click any of the topics below to link directly to that section.

State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.....................1

RESPONSES TO TRIAL RUNS..............................................2

STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS..........................................3

A DILEMMA FOR TEACHERS............................................... 4

CONCLUSION.................................................................. 4

ERIC RESOURCES............................................................ 5

REFERENCES.................................................................. 5

ERIC Identifier: ED466353

Publication Date: 2001-12-00

Author: Kilpatrick, Jeremy

Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education

Columbus OH.

State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC

Digest.

THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT

ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC

In recent years many states have developed their own assessments of student learning

in mathematics, usually aligned with state standards or curriculum frameworks. Many of

ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest. Page 1 of 7
these assessments are intended to have high stakes: financial or other consequences

for districts, schools, teachers, or individual students. In some cases, teacher

promotions or high school diplomas may depend on students achieving passing scores.

As of 1998, 48 states and the District of Columbia had instituted testing programs,

typically at grades 4, 8, and 11 (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1998).

Many states report the results of high-stakes assessments by school or by district to

identify places most in need of improvement. State responses to assessment results

vary. Some states have the authority to close, take over, or "reconstitute" a failing

school, but to date only a few states have ever used such sanctions (Jerald, Curran, &

Boser, 1999). Florida awards additional funds to schools that perform near the bottom

or near the top of the range (Sandham, 1999). When schools or districts with poor

results do not show sufficiently rapid improvement, some states revoke accreditations,

close the schools, seize control of the schools, or grant vouchers that enable students

to enroll elsewhere.

Currently, 19 states require students to pass a mandated assessment in order to

graduate from high school, and several other states are phasing in such a requirement

(Gehring, 2000). In response to calls for an end to social promotion, some states and

districts have begun requiring grade-level mastery tests for promotion, typically in

grades 4 and 8. Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting an inverse relationship

between statewide testing policies and student achievement in mathematics:

"Among the 12 highest-scoring states in 8th grade mathematics in 1996, ... none had

mandatory statewide testing programs in place during the 1980s or early 1990s. Only

two of the top 12 states in the 4th grade mathematics had statewide programs prior to

1995. By contrast, among the 12 lowest-scoring states, ... 10 had extensive student

testing programs in place prior to 1990, some of which were associated with highly

specified state curricula and an extensive menu of rewards and sanctions"

(Darling-Hammond, 1999, p. 33).

RESPONSES TO TRIAL RUNS

To give teachers, students, parents, and others sufficient time to prepare for high-stakes

assessments, states typically administer them for several years before the

consequences take effect. During the trial period, failure rates are sometimes alarmingly

high. In Arizona, for example, only 1 in 10 sophomores passed the mathematics test

first given in the spring of 1999. During the same period, only 7% of Virginia schools

were able to achieve the 70% passing rate, which was to become a condition for

accreditation in 2007. In response to these initial results, some states have begun

relaxing their expectations, reconsidering the tests, or withdrawing them altogether.

Wisconsin, for example, yielded to pressure from parents and withdrew its high school

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 2 of 7 ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.
graduation test. Massachusetts and New York set lower passing scores for their exams

(Steinberg, 1999).

Most states report the level of student performance on their assessments by setting

so-called "cut scores" to define categories with such labels as "advanced," "proficient,"

"needs improvement," and "failing" (Elmore & Rothman, 1999), terms similar to those

used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): "advanced,"

"proficient," and "basic." When results on state assessments are compared with the

state NAEP results, the proportions of students reaching the proficient level are often

higher (Archer, 1997). Some have concluded from this discrepancy that most state tests

do not reflect sufficiently high expectations (Musick, 1997). Others argue that minimum

competence and high expectations are different goals that cannot be measured by the

same assessment and certainly not with the same cut scores. Thus, the results appear

discrepant because the same categories are used to describe performance on

assessments with very different goals.

STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS

Many states and school districts also administer standardized tests which may or may

not coincide with state assessments. Commercially published standardized

achievement tests are quite variable in terms of the topics covered and the degree that

topics are emphasized at each grade level (Romberg & Wilson, 1992, and they are

frequently not aligned with the teaching materials used in districts or with district goals.

This misalignment further dilutes teaching efforts, as teachers must add to their long

lists of goals and topics to be covered.

Most standardized tests might be called "comparison" tests because their function is to

rank order students, schools, and districts. Items are chosen to range widely in difficulty

so as to disperse students' scores, allowing half the students to be classified as "below

average" and the other half as "above average." The tests do not include many items

that only a few students get right or wrong because such items do not help distinguish

among students. The omission of such items may lead to some important aspects of

mathematics not being tested, but for tests designed to make comparisons, the

omissions are necessary.

In contrast, if the purpose of a test is to assess whether students have met specific

goals, test designers can choose items to span the important mathematics to be

learned, and cut scores can be set to indicate various levels of proficiency. Students

and teachers know where to focus their efforts and prepare for tests with the goals in

mind. If students have learned well, large proportions of them can achieve high

proficiency; there is no need to label half of them as below average or to rank them in

any way.

There has traditionally been a level of secrecy about standardized tests so questions

can be reused. In recent years this practice has come under fire. If students are to

reach publicly accepted standards, the argument goes, they need to know what types of

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest. Page 3 of 7
performance will be expected of them (Rothman, 1995, p. 5). Legally and ethically,

when the stakes are high, students should be provided with sample assessments or at

least sample items that are representative of the actual assessments (Heubert &

Hauser, 1998).

A DILEMMA FOR TEACHERS

The movement to hold schools accountable for student performance has resulted in

increased high-stakes testing of "minimum competencies" in mathematics. Many states

give competency tests at several grade levels, including high school exit exams, and

performance on such tests has often been considerably below what was anticipated or

desired. Meanwhile, many districts continue to use standardized tests that are not

necessarily aligned with textbooks, state goals, or state competency tests. This

combination of standardized comparison tests and state competency tests can

overwhelm teachers who have to prepare students for two kinds of tests about which

they often know very little.

State competency tests are often given first at a grade level at which many students are

already far behind in mathematics and likely to have difficulty in catching up. If such

tests are to be used, they need to be accompanied in earlier grades-and throughout all

grades-by other assessments that would enable teachers to make instruction more

effective. In particular, such assessments could identify students who are not achieving

and need special help so that they do not fall further behind. This linking of assessment

to instructional efforts is consistent with a recent NRC report (Elmore & Rothman,

1999)which includes the following two central recommendations:

* Teachers should administer assessments frequently and regularly in classrooms for

the purpose of monitoring individual students' performance and adapting instruction to

improve their performance. (p. 47)

* Teachers should monitor the progress of individual children in grades pre-K to 3 to

improve the quality and appropriateness of instruction. Such assessments should be

conducted at multiple points in time, in children's natural settings, and should use direct

assessments, portfolios, checklists, and other work sampling devices. (p. 53)

CONCLUSION

The current national focus on standards-based testing is an improvement over the past

focus on comparison testing. But standards-based assessment needs to be

accompanied by a clear set of grade-level goals so teachers, parents, and others can

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 4 of 7 ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.
work together to help all children in a school achieve those goals. Continuing informal

assessments throughout the year can help teachers adjust their teaching and identify

students who need additional help. More such help might be available if money formerly

spent on comparison testing were reallocated to help children learn.

ADDITIONAL WEB RESOURCES

"Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics"

by Jeremy Kilpatrick, Jane Swafford, & Bradford Findell (Editors),Online publication of

the National Academy Press.http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9822.html

ERIC RESOURCES

Additional materials pertaining to high stakes testing in mathematics are described in

the ERIC database. Search the ERIC database at

http://ericir.syr.edu/Eric/adv_search.shtml, and use ERIC Descriptors such as

"mathematics tests" and "high stakes tests."

REFERENCES

Archer, J. (1997, January 15). States struggle to ensure data make the grade.

"Education Week" [On-line]. Available: http://www.edweek.com/ew/1997/16data.h16

Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center. (1998).

"Key state education policies on K-12 education." Washington, DC: Author. Available:

http://publications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_detail.cfm?PID=187

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). "Teacher quality and student achievement: A

review of state policy evidence." Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and

Policy. Available: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/ or

http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (1999). "Teaching, testing, and learning: A guide

for states and school districts." Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9609.html

Gehring, J. (2000, February 2). "High stakes" exams seen as test for voc. ed.

"Education Week" [On-line]. Available:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=21voctest.h19

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1998). "High stakes: Testing for tracking,

promotion, and graduation." Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available:

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest. Page 5 of 7
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6336.html

Jerald, C. D., Curran, B. K., & Boser, U. (1999, January 11). The state of the states

[Quality Counts '99]. "Education Week," pp. 106-123. Available:

http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc99/states/indicators/in-intro.htm

Musick, M. (1997). "Setting education standards high enough." Atlanta, GA: Southern

Regional Education Board. Available:

http://www.sreb.org/main/highschools/accountability/settingstandards high.asp

Romberg, T. A., & Wilson, L. D. (1992). Alignment of tests with the standards.

"Arithmetic Teacher," 40 (1), 18-22.

Rothman, R. (1995). "Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform." San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sandham, J. L. (1999, July 14). In first for states, Florida releases graded "report cards"

for schools. "Education Week" [On-line]. Available: http://edweek.org/ew/1999/42fla.h18

Steinberg, J. (1999, December 3). Academic standards eased as a fear of failure

spreads. "The New York Times," p. A1.

-----

This digest was funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.

Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0024. Opinions expressed in

this digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the U.S.

Department of Education.

Title: State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.

Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs)

(071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);

Available From: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental

Education, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1080. Tel: 800-276-0462 (Toll

Free); Fax: 614-292-0263; e-mail: ericse@eric.org. For full text: http://www.ericse.org.

Descriptors: Academic Standards, Achievement Tests, Elementary Secondary

Education, Evaluation Methods, High Stakes Tests, Mathematics Education,

Standardized Tests, State Standards

Identifiers: ERIC Digests

###

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 6 of 7 ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest.
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED466353 2001-12-00 State Proficiency Testing in Mathematics. ERIC Digest. Page 7 of 7