Precision and Volatility in School Accountability Systems

Way, Walter D.

doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2006.tb02032.x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United States, state-based accountability systems, in particular, have been questioned for their capacity to evaluate annual growth in student performance (Martineau 2006, Way 2006. One paper notes that volatility of test score measures "can wreak havoc in school accountability systems."…”

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Longitudinal models place a huge burden on education systems, and are plagued by three main obstacles (Way 2006): (a) the need for vertically scaled tests 5 , (b) the need that all children be followed, and (c) the need for an infrastructure and data capable of tracking students longitudinally. Student dropout and mobility and the lack of a suitable infrastructure lead to serious missing data problems.…”

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of difficulties in implementing longitudinal assessments, implementation of state-based accountability systems in the U.S. has generally relied on the "successive groups" approach for measuring year to year change, despite the technical limitations associated with measuring different cohorts of students (Marion et al 2002 as cited in Way 2006).Successive group models are also used for most national, regional and international learning assessments, and can provide information regarding differential learning outcomes among subgroups of students (such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or geographical location). Successive group models require, at a minimum, that the tests be horizontally equated from one year to the next.…”

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring Progress with Tests of Learning: Pros and Cons for 'Cash on Delivery Aid' in Education

Lockheed

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews, in non-technical terms, the case for and against using tests of learning for measuring annual educational progress within programs of "progressbased aid." It addresses three questions about testing in developing countries. One, are valid and reliable measures of student learning currently available in developing countries? Two, are existing tests used in developing countries capable of registering the changes in educational results called for under "progress-based aid"? And three, do developing countries have the technical and administrative capacity to undertake annual assessments of learning? The paper includes a brief description of existing national, regional and international testing activities in developing and transition countries, a discussion of some technical topics related to testing and assessment, and various options for using learning assessments in the context of "progress-based aid." The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy research organization that is dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor. This paper was made possible in part by financial support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Use and dissemination of this Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be used for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons License.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measuring Learning Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation