I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1513

To provide for fairness and accuracy in high stakes educational decisions

for students.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. TOWNS, Mr.

OWENS, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. LEE,

Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, and Mr. BACA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the

Workforce

A BILL

To provide for fairness and accuracy in high stakes

educational decisions for students.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN HIGH STAKES

4 EDUCATIONAL DECISIONS FOR STUDENTS.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find6 ings:

7 (1) The use of large-scale achievement tests in

8 education has grown significantly in recent years.

9 States and local school districts have increasingly
2

•HR 1513 IH

1 used these tests in such contexts as raising student

2 academic standards to make high-stakes decisions

3 with important consequences for individual students,

4 such as tracking (assigning students to schools, pro5 grams, or classes based on achievement level), pro6 motion of students to the next grade, and gradua7 tion of students from secondary school.

8 (2) The serious and often adverse consequences

9 resulting from the sole reliance on large-scale tests

10 have increasingly resulted in questions and signifi11 cant concerns by students, parents, teachers, and

12 school administrators about how to ensure that such

13 tests are used appropriately and in a manner that

14 is fair.

15 (3) In 1997, Congress directed the National

16 Academy of Sciences to ‘‘conduct a study and make

17 written recommendations on appropriate methods,

18 practices, and safeguards to ensure that, among

19 other things,... existing and new tests that are used

20 to assess student performance are not used in a dis21 criminatory manner or inappropriately for student

22 promotion, tracking, or graduation.’’.

23 (4) In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences,

24 through its National Research Council, completed its

25 study and issued a report entitled ‘‘High Stakes:
3

•HR 1513 IH

1 Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation’’.

2 Guided by principles of measurement validity, attri3 bution of cause, and effectiveness of treatment, the

4 National Research Council made key findings for ap5 propriate test use in educational settings, including

6 the following:

7 (A) When tests are used in ways that meet

8 relevant psychometric, legal, and educational

9 standards, students’ scores provide important

10 information, that combined with information

11 from other sources, can lead to decisions that

12 promote student learning and equality of oppor13 tunity.

14 (B) Tests are not perfect. Test questions

15 are a sample of possible questions that could be

16 asked in a given area. Moreover, a test score is

17 not an exact measure of a student’s knowledge

18 or skills.

19 (C) To the extent that all students are ex20 pected to meet world-class standards, there is a

21 need to provide world-class curricula and in22 struction to all students. However, in most of

23 the Nation, much needs to be done before a

24 world-class curriculum and world-class instruc25 tion will be in place. At present, curriculum
4

•HR 1513 IH

1 does not usually place sufficient emphasis on

2 student understanding and application of con3 cepts, as opposed to memorization and skill

4 mastery. In addition, instruction in core sub5 jects typically has been and remains highly

6 stratified. What teachers teach and what stu7 dents learn vary widely by track, with those in

8 lower tracks receiving far less than a world9 class curriculum.

10 (D) It is a mistake to begin educational re11 form by introducing tests with high stakes for

12 individual students. If tests are to be used for

13 high stakes decisions about individual mastery,

14 such use should follow implementation of

15 changes in teaching and curriculum that ensure

16 that students have been taught the knowledge

17 and skills on which the students will be tested.

18 (E) Problems of test validity are greatest

19 among young children, and there is a greater

20 risk of error when such tests are employed to

21 make high stakes decisions about children who

22 are less than 8 years old or below grade 3, or

23 about their schools. However, well-designed as24 sessments may be useful in monitoring trends
5

•HR 1513 IH

1 in the educational development of populations

2 of students who have reached age 5.

3 (5) The National Research Council made the

4 following recommendations:

5 (A) If parents, educators, public officials,

6 and others who share responsibility for edu7 cational outcomes are to discharge their respon8 sibility effectively, they should have access to

9 information about the nature and interpretation

10 of tests and test scores. Such information

11 should be made available to the public and

12 should be incorporated into teacher education

13 and into educational programs for principals,

14 administrators, public officials, and others.

15 (B) A test may appropriately be used to

16 lead curricular reform, but it should not also be

17 used to make high-stakes decisions about indi18 vidual students until test users can show that

19 the test measures what they have been taught.

20 (C) High-stakes decisions such as tracking,

21 promotion, and graduation should not automati22 cally be made on the basis of a single test score

23 but should be buttressed by other relevant in24 formation about the student’s knowledge and
6

•HR 1513 IH

1 skill, such as grades, teacher recommendations,

2 and extenuating circumstances.

3 (D) In general, large-scale assessments

4 should not be used to make high-stakes deci5 sions about students who are less than 8 years

6 old or enrolled below grade 3.

7 (E) High-stakes testing programs should

8 routinely include a well-designed evaluation

9 component. Policymakers should monitor both

10 the intended and unintended consequences of

11 high-stake assessments on all students and on

12 significant subgroups of students, including mi13 norities, English-language learners, and stu14 dents with disabilities.

15 (6) These principles and findings of the Na16 tional Academy of Sciences are supported in signifi17 cant measure by the Standards for Educational and

18 Psychological Testing, adopted and approved in De19 cember of 1999, by the leading experts and profes20 sional organizations on testing, including the Amer21 ican Educational Research Association, American

22 Psychological Association, and the National Council

23 on Measurement in Education.

24 (b) TEST PERFORMANCE.—If performance on a sin25 gle large-scale test is considered as part of any decision
7

•HR 1513 IH

1 about the retention, graduation, tracking, or within-class

2 ability grouping of an individual student by a State edu3 cational agency or local educational agency that receives

4 funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

5 of 1965, such test performance shall not be the sole cri6 terion in such decision and may be considered in making

7 such decision only if—

8 (1) the test, including any cut score or perform9 ance standard set or established for use on the test,

10 meets professional standards of validity and reli11 ability for the purpose for which the test’s results

12 are being used;

13 (2) the test allows its users to make score inter14 pretations in relation to a functional performance

15 level, as distinguished from those interpretations

16 that are made in relation to the performance of oth17 ers;

18 (3) the test is based on State or local content

19 and performance standards and is aligned with the

20 curriculum and classroom instruction;

21 (4) the test follows implementation of changes

22 in teaching and curriculum that ensure that stu23 dents have been taught the knowledge and skills on

24 which the students will be tested;
8

•HR 1513 IH

1 (5) multiple measures of student achievement,

2 including grades and evaluations by teachers, are

3 utilized to ensure that scores from the test are never

4 the only source of information used, nor the sole cri5 terion used, in making a high-stakes decision about

6 an individual student;

7 (6) students tested have been provided multiple

8 opportunities to demonstrate proficiency in the aca9 demic subject covered by the test;

10 (7) the test is administered in accordance with

11 the written guidance from the test developer or pub12 lisher;

13 (8) the State educational agency or local edu14 cational agency involved has evidence that the test

15 is of adequate technical quality for each purpose for

16 which the test is used;

17 (9) the State educational agency or local edu18 cational agency provides appropriate accommoda19 tions and alternate assessments for students with

20 disabilities that provide the students with a valid op21 portunity to show what the students know and can

22 do;

23 (10) the State educational agency or local edu24 cational agency provides appropriate accommoda25 tions and alternative assessments for students with
9

•HR 1513 IH

1 limited English proficiency (if the agency involved

2 determines that the students have not achieved suffi3 cient English proficiency to ensure that the test will

4 validly and reliably measure the subject matter

5 knowledge and skills of the students), including—

6 (A) the use of a test other than an

7 English-only test;

8 (B) the use of alternate assessments (con9 sisting of psychometrically equivalent tests in

10 the students’ native language) in order to pro11 vide such students with a valid and reliable op12 portunity to demonstrate what the students

13 know and can do; and

14 (C) in a case in which the Secretary of

15 Education determines that more than 5 percent

16 of the students enrolled in kindergarten

17 through grade 12 in a State are members of a

18 single language minority group and are limited

19 English proficient—

20 (i) the assessment of the students in

21 that group using tests developed in the

22 language of that group, if the State or

23 local educational agency determines that

24 such tests are more likely than English25 only tests to yield accurate and reliable in-
10

•HR 1513 IH

1 formation regarding what those students

2 know and can do; or

3 (ii) if the language of the group is

4 oral or unwritten or, in the case of Alaska

5 Natives and other American Indians, if the

6 predominant language of the group is his7 torically unwritten, the furnishing of oral

8 instructions, assistance, and other nec9 essary information to such students relat10 ing to the English-only test; and

11 (11) the test is not used for a decision about

12 promotion or placement in special education for a

13 child below the age of 8 or third grade.

14 (c) EVALUATIONS.—

15 (1) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—Each

16 State educational agency that receives funds under

17 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

18 1965 and uses a large-scale test as part of a high

19 stakes decision described in subsection (b), shall pe20 riodically conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the

21 impact of high stakes decisions on students’ edu22 cation and educational outcomes, with particular

23 consideration given to the impact on individual stu24 dents and subgroups of students disaggregated by

25 socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, limited English
11

•HR 1513 IH

1 proficiency, disability, and gender. The State edu2 cational agency shall make the results of the evalua3 tion available to the public and shall provide clear

4 and comprehensible information about the nature,

5 use, and interpretation of the test and the scores the

6 test generate.

7 (2) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—Each local

8 educational agency that receives funds under the El9 ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,

10 uses a large-scale test as part of a high stakes deci11 sion described in subsection (b), and is located in a

12 State that does not conduct an evaluation under

13 paragraph (1), shall periodically conduct a com14 prehensive evaluation of the impact of high stakes

15 decisions on students’ education and educational

16 outcomes, with particular consideration given to the

17 impact on individual students and subgroups of stu18 dents disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race,

19 ethnicity, limited English proficiency, disability, and

20 gender. The local educational agency shall make the

21 results of the evaluation available to the public and

22 shall provide clear and comprehensible information

23 about the nature, use, and interpretation of the test

24 and the scores the test generate.
12

•HR 1513 IH

1 (3) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.—The Sec2 retary shall—

3 (A) conduct an evaluation similar to the

4 evaluation described in paragraph (1) among a

5 representative sample of States and local edu6 cational agencies;

7 (B) report the results of such evaluation to

8 Congress; and

9 (C) make the results of the evaluation

10 available to the public.

11 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—The terms used in this sec13 tion have the meanings given the terms in section

14 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education

15 Act of 1965.

16 (2) LARGE-SCALE TEST.—The term ‘‘large-scale

17 test’’ means a test that is administered and scored

18 under conditions uniform to all students so that the

19 test scores are comparable across individuals.

20 (3) SOLE CRITERION.—The term ‘‘sole cri21 terion’’ means the only one standard (such as a test

22 score) used to make a judgment or a decision, in23 cluding a step-wise decisionmaking procedure where

24 students must reach or exceed one criterion (such as
13

•HR 1513 IH

1 a cut score of a test) independent of or before other

2 criteria can be considered.

Æ