Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 8
  • Print publication year: 2008
  • Online publication date: June 2012

1 - Introduction

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.

References
Brennan, R. L. 2005. A perspective on psychometrics. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 3: 89–91.
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 134–56.
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.
Jordan, B. and Putz, P.. 2004. Assessment as practice: Notes on measures, tests, and targets. Human Organization 63(3): 346–58.
Lampert, M. 2001. Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
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.
Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., and Haniford, L. C.. 2006. Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education 30: 109–62.
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.
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.
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.