JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The evidence is missing for high-stakes standardized testing of either intelligence or achievement as a reform tool, a tool for producing higher student achievement. The focus on invalid testing allows us to ignore the well-documented importance of the quality of teaching as a key factor in student achievement. There is no doubt that teachers can become powerful agents in raising the academic performance of children to high levels, regardless of common impediments such as poverty, bilingualism, and so forth. With the extreme and almost exclusive focus on high-stakes testing, we lose the opportunity to support valid staff development that would make all of our teachers powerful.

No abstract

This article contains a review of issues and documentation concerning the possibility of "measuring " the intelligence of students. The construct validity of "intelligence, " the role of cultural context as a modifier of the meaning of test results, and the lack of meaningful predictive validity of IQ tests are discussed. A discussion of the utility of the intelligence construct and IQ measures, and their relationship to the design of beneficial pedagogy follows. Based on reviews of empirical evidence, it is concluded that the measurement of intelligence as practical, at present, makes no contribution to the design of instruction that is beneficial to students, as far as academic achievement is concerned. The main effects of the present popular intelligence measures are found to be negative.

Feature articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include but are not limited to reviews of new developments in evaluation; descriptions of a current evaluation effort, research problem, or technique; and discussions of theoretical, legal, or ethical issues affecting evaluation. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and should not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length.