----

##  The Debate over National Testing. ERIC Digest.                               

Most teachers are comfortable with developing and using tests for               classroom purposes, whether to see how much students have learned,              to provide a basis for grades, or to gain an understanding of                   individual students' strengths and weaknesses. As state departments             of education move forward with their testing programs, teachers are             becoming increasingly familiar with tests used as measures of                   accountability. A third layer of testing arises on the national                 level and includes the National Assessment of Educational                       Progress (NAEP) and President Bush's plan to require states to test             third- through eighth-grade students in Title I schools annually in             reading and mathematics, with state results verified against NAEP or            a commercial test such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. 
This                 Digest presents various views of the federal role in testing and                offers a brief examination of NAEP, "the nation's report card," in              both its national sample format and its state administration, which             critics fear has the potential to become a de facto national test if            it is selected as the basis for comparing state tests. It also                  suggests action steps and resources to enable teachers to take part             in the ongoing debate about testing. 
The United States, unlike                many other countries, has no national test that every student in                every state takes to demonstrate mastery of some agreed-upon body of            knowledge and skills. Commercial test publishers have long offered              achievement tests (e.g., the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the                     California Achievement Test, the Terra Nova) that are administered              to schools across the country and normalized on national samples,               but these are not in themselves national tests because individual               schools, districts, or states decide for themselves whether to use              them and which to select. The SAT is probably the most common test              administered in the country, but it is intended to measure                      college-bound students' aptitude for college work, not academic                 achievement across a wide range of subjects for all students. And it            has the ACT as competition. 
The question of the appropriate role              for the federal government to play in testing is a complicated one,             and like many policy matters, it has strong political overtones.                Over the past two decades, many policymakers have moved from an                 initial position of strong support for some sort of a national test             used as an accountability tool to opposition on the grounds that a              national test would usher in a national curriculum and lead to                  further federal involvement in what has historically been a state               and local matter. These policymakers want states to establish                   administer their own standards and assessments without interference             from Washington; they see  federal involvement in testing as a                  sometimes unwelcome effort to dictate what is important for their               students to learn. 
On the other hand, some policymakers seem to be            less troubled by an expanded federal role in testing, but more                  suspicious about whether nationwide testing would lead to genuine               school improvement and higher student achievement or just sort out              and  penalize low-performing schools and the students in them, who              are disproportionately low income and minority. They argue that                 until there is truly equal opportunity to learn for all                         students (with equal access to technology, highly qualified                     teachers, good facilities, and other learning inputs), testing is an            empty exercise. Some policymakers also fear that poor test scores               might fuel discontent with the public school system and lead to more            support for controversial initiatives such as vouchers for private              school aid. 
Federally mandated testing also raises a variety of               practical and technical questions, including the following: 
*  Who            will pay the considerable cost of developing and administering                  additional tests? 
*  Do states have the technical expertise and               personnel to conduct another large-scale assessment and analyze and             report results? 
* Will the tests be valid and will scores be                  reliable for high-stakes purposes such as making decisions about                which schools receive financial incentives and which are sanctioned             for low performance? 
*  How will existing state tests be linked to            each other or to "yardsticks" such as NAEP or commercial tests so               that student and school progress can be measured fairly and                     accurately, particularly if rewards and sanctions are tied to                   results? NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSThe                   National Assessment of Educational Progress, nicknamed "the nation's            report card," is a 32-year-old congressionally mandated project of              the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S.             Department of Education. The NAEP assessment is administered                    annually by NCES to a nationally representative sample of public and            private school students in grades 4, 8, and 12 to get a picture of              what American children know and can do. NAEP results are usually                watched closely because the assessment is considered a highly                   respected, technically sound longitudinal measure of U.S. student               achievement. 
Two subject areas are typically assessed each year.              Reading, mathematics, writing, and science are assessed most                    frequently, usually at 4-year intervals so that trends can be                   monitored Civics, U.S. history, geography, and the arts have also               been assessed in recent years, and foreign language will be assessed            for the first time in 2003. Once exclusively multiple choice, NAEP              now includes performance-based items that call for students to work             with science kits, use calculators, prepare writing samples, and                create art projects. 
Students in participating schools are                    randomly selected to take one portion of the assessment being                   administered in a given year (usually administered during  a 1-1/2              to 2-hour testing period).  Achievement is reported at one of three             levels: Basic, for partial mastery; Proficient, for solid academic              performance; and Advanced, for superior work. A forth level, Below              Basic, indicates less-than-acceptable performance. Individual                   student, school, and district data are not reported. 
To help                  states measure students' academic performance over time and to allow            for cross-state comparisons, a voluntary state component was added              to NAEP in 1990. As of this writing, legislators are considering                expanding the role of state NAEP to serve as a check on results from            states' annual testing of third through eight graders called for                under the Bush education plan. This could mean annual state NAEP                testing in reading and mathematics (as opposed to once every four               years) for a sample of students in grades four and eight in each                state. 
A 26-member independent board called the National                      Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is responsible for setting NAEP               policy, selecting which subject areas will be assessed, and                     overseeing the content and design of each NAEP assessment. NAGB does            not attempt to specify a national curriculum, but rather, outlines              what a national assessment should test, based on a national                     consensus process that involves gathering input from teachers,                  curriculum experts, policymakers, the business community, and the               public. TESTS, TESTS EVERYWHEREWhile almost every state has               implemented some sort of state testing program, the differences in              what they measure, how they measure it, and how they set achievement            levels make it virtually impossible to conduct meaningful                       state-by-state comparisons of individual student performance. Some              people believe state-to-state comparisons are irrelevant  because               education is a state and local function. Others believe cross-state             comparisons will help are important to ensure spur reform and ensure            uniformly high-quality education across the country. 
Legislation              being debated now calls for the use of NAEP or another nationally               administered test as a check on the results of annual state tests.              Theoretically, a state-level NAEP would yield useful data. In                   reality, however, NAEP state-level results have sometimes been                  confusing because achievement levels of students generally appear to            be much lower on NAEP than on the state tests. This discrepancy may             be attributed to a number of factors, including the following: 
*              State tests are more likely to be aligned with state curricula than             NAEP is. 
* State tests and NAEP use different definitions of                  proficiency. 
* State tests and NAEP may use different formats. 
*            State tests and NAEP differ in terms of who takes them (e.g.,                   whether students in special education or with limited English                   proficiency are included). 
In general, fewer students are judged              to reach the Proficient standard on the NAEP reading and math tests             than on state tests (GAO, 1998). This discrepancy can lead people               who are not aware of the differences in the two types of tests to               question the validity of their own state testing programs or the                desirability of participating in a federal one. Using the results of            any other nationally normalized standardized test poses the same                difficulty. 
It is difficult to predict how the national testing               issue will ultimately be resolved. President Bush's plan calls for              expanding testing in most states and gives NAEP and commercial tests            a more prominent role than they currently have. Teachers might be               torn between continuing to teach the curriculum aligned with their              state assessment or switching gears to focus on whatever other test             is being used to determine rewards and sanctions. Given the                     classroom implications of expanded testing, it makes sense for                  teachers to stay active in the discussion. RESOURCESBarton, P.            E. (1999). Too Much Testing of the Wrong Kind; Too Little of the                Right Kind in K-12 Education. A Policy Information Perspective.                 Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. ED 430 052. 
Davey,                L. (1992). The case for a national test. Practical Assessment,                  Research & Evaluation, 3 (1). [Available online:                                http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=3&n=1]. 
Davey, Lynn & Neill,               Monty (1991). The case against a national test. Practical                       Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(10). [Available online:                    http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=2&n=10]. 
General Accounting                Office (1998). Student Testing: Issues Related to Voluntary National            Mathematics and Reading Tests. Report to the Honorable William F.               Goodling, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House             of Representatives, and the Honorable John Ashcroft, U.S. Senate.               Washington, DC: Author.  ED 423 244. 
National Center for Education            Statistics (November 1999).  The NAEP Guide: A Description of the               Content and Methods of the 1999 and 2000 Assessments. Washington,               DC: U.S. Department of Education. 
----- 
This publication was                prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and               Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract                       ED99CO0032.  The opinions expressed in this report do not                       necessarily reflect the positions of policies of OERI or the U.S.               Department of Education.  Permission is granted to copy and                     distribute this ERIC/AE Digest.                                              **Title:** The Debate over National Testing. 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 on Assessment and Evaluation, 1129 Shriver                   Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3742.                Tel: 800-464-3742 (Toll Free).                                               **Descriptors:** Academic Achievement,  Achievement Tests, Elementary Secondary                  Education,  Federal Government,  Government Role,  National                     Competency Tests, Performance Based Assessment,  Politics, Test                 Construction,  Test Use                                                      **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests,  National Assessment of Educational Progress                   
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]