This study examines whether the results of standardized tests are distorted when rewards and sanctions are attached to them, making them high-stakes tests. It measures the correlation in school-level test results—including both score levels and year-to-year score changes—on high-stakes and low-stakes tests administered in the same schools in nine school systems. It finds that test score levels generally correlate very well, while year-to-year score changes correlate very well in Florida but much more weakly in other school systems. It concludes that the stakes of high-stakes tests do not distort information about the general level at which students are performing, and in Florida they also do not prevent the tests from providing accurate information about school influence over student progress.

The aim of this book is twofold: to explain the reconciliation of religion and politics in the work of John Locke, and to explore the relevance of that reconciliation for politics in our own time. Confronted with deep social divisions over ultimate beliefs, Locke sought to unite society in a single liberal community. Reason could identify divine moral laws that would be acceptable to members of all cultural groups, thereby justifying the authority of government. Greg Forster demonstrates that Locke's theory is liberal and rational but also moral and religious, providing an alternative to the two extremes of religious fanaticism and moral relativism. This account of Locke's thought will appeal to specialists and advanced students across philosophy, political science and religious studies.

Greg Forster is a senior fellow at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Indianapolis (greg@friedmanfoundation.org).

No abstract