[Senate Hearing 111-1118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1118
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION:
STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)
REAUTHORIZATION, FOCUSING ON STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
__________
APRIL 28, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-288 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JACK REED, Rhode Island JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Daniel Smith, Staff Director
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010
Page
Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Paine, Steven L., Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools, West Virginia
Department of Education, Charleston, WV........................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Schmeiser, Cynthia B., Ph.D., President, Education Division, Act
National Office, Iowa City, IA................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Phillips, Gary, Ph.D., Vice President, American Institutes for
Research, Washington, DC....................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Rivera, Charlene, Ed.D., Executive Director, George Washington
University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education,
Alexandria, VA................................................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Thurlow, Martha, Ph.D., Director, National Center on Educational
Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN...................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 47
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee 48
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 50
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia... 51
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 53
Hagan, Hon. Kay R., a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 56
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 58
(iii)
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION:
STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in Room
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Casey, Hagan,
Merkley, Franken, Bennet, Enzi, Alexander, and Isakson.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on the important role that
standards and assessments play in our education system.
In our previous ESEA hearings, a variety of experts have
impressed on us the importance of our country developing a
world-class education system that prepares our students to be
successful after high school graduation. In order to do this,
it is vital that we have a clear understanding of what students
need to learn and develop ways to accurately assess their
progress to determine what they are learning and where they
need additional help.
Nearly 30 years ago, the landmark report, ``A Nation at
Risk,'' highlighted the need for rigorous standards in our
country's schools. About a decade later, the Nation's Governors
heeded that call with the Charlottesville Summit, and the
Federal Government supported States' efforts to develop
standards by passing Goals 2000 and the Improving America's
Schools Act, which was the 1994 version of ESEA.
At the beginning of the last decade, we took the next steps
by requiring that all students within a given State be held to
the same high standards. These standards helped to end a two-
tiered system that meant lower expectations for disadvantaged
students. However, the standards did not ensure that students
were being prepared for success after high school graduation.
In Iowa, for example, over 80 percent of high school
graduates plan to pursue training or college after high school.
Yet, too often, they are unprepared to meet the challenges of
post-secondary education. Experts estimate that nearly 60
percent of students entering post-secondary schools need to
take remedial courses to catch up to college-level coursework.
The Alliance for Excellent Education has estimated that
this need for remediation costs our Nation at least $3.7
billion every year. The problem is also evident in the
workforce. A recent study estimated that over 50 percent of
high school graduates do not have the skills to do their job,
compared to less than 20 percent of college graduates.
While the adoption of State standards was no small
achievement in No Child Left Behind, it is clear that, as we
reauthorize this bill, serious improvements are necessary. We
must ensure that the standards that States set are not false
benchmarks but translate into success, whether students chose
to go to college or enter a career.
I might also add that there are important civil rights and
equity questions at play here also. Professor Goodwin Liu of
Boalt Hall Law School at Berkeley published a paper showing
that those States with the highest minority and low-income
populations also tend to have the lowest standards.
Finally, the obvious issues of teacher preparation and
economies of scale are central to this conversation. How can
schools of education properly prepare teachers to teach to
standards if those standards may be significantly different in
the State where the teacher ends up teaching after graduation?
We do not have a mandate that says if a teacher goes to the
University of Northern Iowa and takes a course in education to
become a teacher that that person has to stay in Iowa all their
life. They may go to Minnesota, and a lot of them do, quite
frankly.
I applaud the leadership of the chiefs and the Governors
and their partners in developing this Common Core, and I look
forward to hearing more about this. However, along with setting
high achievement goals, we must also develop the ability to
measure whether or not students are meeting those goals.
Because of NCLB's testing requirements, we know more about
which students are achieving and which need more assistance and
support. Teachers need to know this, too. However, in many
cases, that measurement is being done through low-quality tests
that don't measure the range of skills and knowledge that we
value.
Technological advancements have made it possible to adapt
questions during a test to better show the depth of a student's
knowledge of the subject or to electronically score short-
answer or essay questions, not just multiple choice.
In this reauthorization, it is critical that we redouble
our commitment to ensuring that students will graduate ready to
meet the challenges of college and the workplace. As we have
heard time and time again, our economic success in the next
century is directly tied to our ability to have a highly
educated, highly skilled workforce.
I look forward to hearing from our panelists today because
adopting high-quality standards and assessments is an important
step to that end. I thank all of them for being here. After
Senator Enzi makes his opening statement, I will introduce the
panel, and we can hear from the panel, and we will open it up
for discussion.
With that, I recognize Senator Enzi.
Opening Statement of Senator Enzi
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to note that all of them don't go to
Minnesota. Some of them come to Wyoming. That way, they don't
have to learn a new accent.
[Laughter.]
I do want to thank you for continuing this series of
hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act with the important issues of standards and
assessments. The witnesses before us today have provided some
excellent written testimony and will provide insight and
information that will be very helpful in our work to
reauthorize ESEA.
I want to start by applauding the work of the National
Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers in the development of the Common Core standards. This
effort was appropriately led, developed, and should be
continued by the States.
I have said for many years that students need to be
provided with knowledge and skills they need to be successful
in college and the workforce. The Common Core standards,
developed by the States, if implemented and adopted properly,
could finally move our country in that direction.
However, the Federal Government should stay out of the way
of these efforts. As we work on the reauthorization of ESEA, we
should find ways to assist States, not require or coerce them
with this difficult, but important, work. The development and
adoption of these standards by the States are just the first
steps in a very long process.
Once adopted, States are going to have to implement new
assessments and curriculum aligned to these standards. This
process will take time, which may be longer for some States
than others, but it has the potential to save money in the cost
of test validation. Part of the process is making sure that the
impact on teachers in the classroom is positive and that they
are given the training and support they need to teach students.
I am pleased that many of you will also discuss
assessments. While considering the changes to ESEA, we need to
maintain the high standard of including all students in single
State-wide accountability systems. The growth of individual
students and collectively among a group of students in reducing
the achievement gaps between higher-achieving and lower-
achieving students has been well-documented. We cannot stop
moving in this direction now as we continue to prepare our
students, rich or poor, with or without disabilities, or
English language learners for post-secondary education or
employment in the global economy.
However, when assessing these students, we need to be sure
they are taking the assessment that best measures their
ability. Therefore, students need access to the necessary and
proper accommodations and other supports they need to
accurately reflect their true ability and capability.
The work being done by States on standards has spearheaded
significant discussion among the next generation of State
systems of assessment. In my travels across Wyoming, I hear
over and over that the static model used by many States under
No Child Left Behind needs to be changed to allow for growth
models in all the States.
I am particularly pleased that these new assessments will
be better aligned to allow for better measurements of student
growth from year to year. It is important to maintain regular
assessments that summarize the development of students so that
we know how a student has done over the course of each year.
It is also important to support State systems of assessment
that would include various assessment models, many of which
could be used by teachers to better inform the work they do in
the classroom. I also believe that these new assessments can do
a better job of measuring higher-order thinking skills and the
21st century skills that business leaders need in their
workforce.
All of these changes will also have a huge impact on the
data that we report, collect, and use. As we work through these
changes, we must remember that it is important to measure what
we value instead of valuing what we measure. States and school
districts have developed data systems, but it is still unclear
how much of that data is accessible by teachers to really have
an impact on their work in the classroom.
Elementary and secondary education in this country is
undergoing some new and exciting changes. Our work on the
reauthorization of ESEA must be done carefully and deliberately
to foster and support the changes. NCLB is often criticized for
its unintended consequences. If we are not thoughtful and
instead work quickly because we are trying to meet artificial
deadlines, we could wind up being criticized even more than we
are now.
I want to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for
being with us today to share their knowledge and expertise. I
know that we won't have a chance to ask you all the questions
that we need to, based on the testimony that I have already
read. I hope that you realized you have volunteered to answer
written questions that we might have afterwards.
I look forward to learning more from each of you in the
efforts you have undertaken in the areas of standards and
assessments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
I just want to reassure you and also my friend from
Minnesota, Senator Franken, that because so many Minnesotans
come south to Iowa for the winter----
[Laughter.]
We like to be welcoming, we make sure that all of our kids
in Iowa are taught to say, ``Ya, you betcha.''
[Laughter.]
That is Minnesotan. Just want to reassure you that we do
know how to speak that language.
Senator Franken. Oh, thanks a lot.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Ya, you betcha.
[Laughter.]
Now I will thank our panel for being here. I will introduce
you all. Then we will just go in order.
First, we have Dr. Steven Paine, West Virginia's 25th State
superintendent of schools. Under the leadership of Dr. Paine,
West Virginia has been internationally and nationally
recognized for its 21st century learning program, its pre-K
programs, school leadership development programs, reading
initiatives, and teacher quality efforts. Dr. Paine was
recently elected president of the board of the Council of Chief
State School Officers.
Next, from my home State of Iowa, someone who did not go to
Minnesota, Dr. Cindy Schmeiser. As the Education Division
president at ACT, Dr. Schmeiser is responsible for leading and
coordinating the research, development, and client support of
all assessment instruments associated with ACT's educational
programs. She obtained her Master's and Doctorate degrees in
educational measurement and statistics from the University of
Iowa.
Next, we are joined by Dr. Gary Phillips. Dr. Phillips is a
vice president at American Institutes for Research. He has
served as the commissioner of the National Center for Education
Statistics from 1999 until 2002. He is internationally known
for his expertise in large-scale assessments and complex
surveys.
Next, we welcome Dr. Charlene Rivera, who directs the
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence
in Education. As a nationally recognized education researcher,
Dr. Rivera is known for work that addresses English language
learners. Her research focuses on State assessment policies and
practices, accommodations, accountability, national standards,
program evaluation and reporting, and leadership development.
Finally, we are grateful to have Dr. Martha Thurlow, who is
the director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes. In
this position, she addresses the implications of contemporary
policy and practice for students with disabilities, including
national and State-wide assessment policies and practices,
standard-setting efforts, and graduation requirements.
Dr. Thurlow has conducted research for the past 35 years in
a variety of areas, including assessment and decisionmaking,
learning disabilities, early childhood education, dropout
prevention, effective classroom instruction, and integration of
students with disabilities in general education settings.
We have a very distinguished panel to talk to us about
standards and assessments. We welcome you here. All your
statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety.
I would appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes or
thereabouts to just give us a summary of it, and then we can
engage you in conversation.
Dr. Paine, welcome, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. PAINE, Ph.D., SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CHARLESTON, WV
Mr. Paine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today on behalf
of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National
Governors Association regarding Common Core standards and that
initiative and the State cooperation to develop high-quality
assessments that is related to that project.
My name is Steve Paine. I am the State superintendent of
schools in West Virginia and the current president of CCSSO.
And I just might add, Senator Harkin, Senator Enzi, in your
opening remarks, you are spot on to the issues that exist
around the Common Core standards and the assessments that are
related. I am so appreciative that you understand the issues so
clearly. Thank you.
As the committee continues to examine the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, I appreciate this opportunity to talk
about the States' extraordinary leadership in a voluntary
effort to ensure that all students are held to college- and
career-ready standards. The State-led Common Core development
effort will conclude next month with the release of the final
grade-by-grade standards in English language arts and
mathematics.
This work is representative of States' commitment to
leading the way on education reform. Given this bold State
action, we hope the Federal Government will respond in kind by
ensuring that the updated ESEA supports a new State-Federal
partnership, a partnership that provides States with greater
authority to innovate and appropriate incentives and supports
to help them not only implement college- and career-ready
standards, but also improve teacher and leader effectiveness,
strengthen longitudinal and instructional data systems, and
turn around low-performing schools.
CCSSO and NGA launched the voluntary State-led Common Core
standards initiative to provide a coherent foundation for
ensuring that all students leave high school ready for college
and career. The 48 States, including West Virginia--and I might
add that we are one of those States that is a high-minority
State.
We are very proud of the fact that we have taken this work
of Common Core standards seriously, and our own new standards
now receive top billing in most recent quality counts report in
Education Week for being rigorous and having a very rigorous
standards assessment accountability system. So it can be done,
and we have rolled up our sleeves to say that we are going to
accept that challenge.
As we move forward, there were five core principles that
permeated the development of the Common Core standards. It was
determined that the common standards must be, No. 1, fewer,
clearer, and higher. A mantra that we learned from some of
those higher performing nations out there, such as Singapore
and Taiwan and others.
Second, that they needed to be, in fact, internationally
benchmarked to the curricula of those highest-performing
nations.
Third, that they include rigorous content knowledge, along
with those skills that you have identified in your introduction
that are so critical to business and into the private sector
today in our global world.
Fourth, they must be evidence and research-based. And
finally, that they prepare students for college and career.
That is an absolute must.
As the development phase concludes, State adoption and
implementation of the Common Core will help to ensure that all
students are called upon to satisfy college- and career-ready
standards and will enable fair and accurate performance
comparisons--which is a key point of this, State
comparability--between States, while catalyzing and enabling
unprecedented State collaboration to address the Nation's most
pressing educational challenges.
Several States are in the process of adopting the Common
Core. Kentucky led the way, and they were the first State. I am
proud to say our State will adopt the Common Core next month,
and I am sure other States will follow suit as the deadline for
adoption approaches us.
Participating States developed the Common Core standards in
two phases with the support of leading standards experts who
collaborated with a range of interested stakeholders from
across the country. The very transparent development process
included numerous opportunities for public comment and
benefited from constructive feedback provided by individual
schoolteachers--very importantly schoolteachers--and leaders,
national education organizations, higher education
representatives, civil rights groups, and other interested
parties and individuals.
The initiative's phase one work concluded in the fall of
2009 when CCSSO and NGA published Common Core and career-
readiness standards, illustrating what students should know at
the end of high school. Since that time, the initiative's
second phase of work has focused on back-mapping the college-
and career-ready standards on a grade-by-grade basis for
kindergarten through Grade 12.
Let me just say in conclusion, if I might, that we
certainly are excited about the opportunities that have been
availed with the advent of $350 million in Race to the Top for
innovative assessments to assess this Common Core, the full
scope and--the full scope and range of the Common Core
standards.
I also deeply appreciated in your opening remarks your
acknowledgment that that certainly includes a summative
standardized test, but must include other measures of progress,
particularly those that are employed by teachers in classrooms
as we look at multiple measures of how we assess progress.
I certainly appreciate the time that you have provided to
me today to offer testimony and look forward to any questions
that you might have for me after the testimonials from our
other experts.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven L. Paine, Ph.D.
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to speak today about the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA)
common core standards initiative and State cooperation to develop
related high quality assessments. My name is Steve Paine, I am the
State Superintendent of Schools in West Virginia and the current
President of CCSSO.
As the committee continues to examine the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about the States'
extraordinary leadership in a voluntary effort to ensure that all
students are held to college and career-ready standards. The State-led
common core development effort will conclude next month with the
release of the final grade-by-grade standards in English Language Arts
and Mathematics. This work is representative of States' commitment to
leading the way on education reform. Given this bold State action, we
hope the Federal Government will respond in kind by ensuring that the
updated ESEA supports a new State-Federal partnership. A partnership
that provides States with greater authority to innovate and appropriate
incentives and supports to help them not only implement college and
career-ready standards, but also improve teacher and leader
effectiveness, strengthen longitudinal and instructional data systems
and turnaround low-performing schools.
summary
CCSSO and the NGA launched the voluntary State-led common core
standards initiative to provide a coherent foundation for ensuring that
all students leave high school ready for college and career. The 48
States, including West Virginia, two territories and the District of
Columbia who worked collectively to develop the common core standards
in English language arts and mathematics were guided by several core
principles. The common standards must be: (1) higher, clearer and
fewer, (2) internationally benchmarked, (3) include content knowledge
and skills; (4) evidence and research-based; and (5) prepare students
for college and career. As the development phase concludes, State
adoption and implementation of the common core will help to ensure that
all students are called upon to satisfy college and career-ready
standards and will enable fair and accurate performance comparisons
between States, while catalyzing and enabling unprecedented State
collaboration to address the Nation's most pressing educational
challenges.
Participating States developed the common core standards in two
phases with the support of leading, standards experts, who collaborated
with a range of interested stakeholders from across the country. The
transparent development process, included numerous opportunities for
public comment and benefited from constructive feedback provided by
individual school teachers and leaders, national education
organizations, higher education representatives, civil rights groups,
and other interested parties and individuals. The initiative's phase
one work concluded in the fall of 2009 when CCSSO and NGA published
common college and career readiness standards, illustrating what
students should know at the end of high school. Since that time, the
initiative's second phase of work has focused on back-mapping the
college and career-ready standards on a grade-by-grade basis for
Kindergarten through Grade 12.
As the standards development work draws to a close and
participating States begin the voluntary adoption process, several
exciting common State assessment collaboratives are beginning to take
shape, including a group co-led by West Virginia. State cooperation to
develop common, high quality assessments is possible because of the
common core standards initiative and will be furthered by the $350
million Race to the Top Assessment competition. These advanced
assessment systems will measure student knowledge and skills against
the full range of college and career-ready standards and will represent
the next generation of summative, formative and interim assessments,
which will significantly improve teaching and learning in the classroom
by providing unprecedented insights into student's status and growth.
Even as this important State-led standards and assessment work
continues, we are pleased to have this opportunity to make
recommendations to Congress about how the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act might be updated to support State-led education reform.
The Nation's chief State school officers believe the new ESEA should
continue and expand the Federal Government's strong commitment to
supporting State assessment development, support movement toward
voluntary State college and work-ready standards, and fund the creation
of aligned, and enhanced assessments systems. New instrumentation
should be fully representative of the richness of standards and allow
for students who learn at different rates.
common core standards development principles and transparency
As mentioned earlier, even before State development of the common
standards started in early 2009, the initiative was driven by four
fundamental principles designed to ensure the integrity and quality of
the standards.
First, the common standards are higher, clearer and fewer. Each
design element was crucial to the development process. Higher standards
raise the bar to prepare students for international competitiveness.
Being committed to higher standards ensures that no State would lower
its standards by adopting the common core. Clearer standards allow
parents, students, and teachers to understand exactly what is expected
of students as they advance through the system. Fewer standards allow
teachers to more deeply focus on topics. One challenge that State
leaders consistently hear from educators is that current standards are
too numerous to cover in the school year. To overcome this challenge,
we raised the bar and focused the standards to maximize student
learning.
Second, the common standards are internationally benchmarked.
American students are entering a global economy that requires
competition with students from around the world. Through States'
development of the common standards, we evaluated other high achieving
countries' standards to ensure that the common core represented world
class standards. As a result, the new standards will prepare American
students to be internationally competitive when they leave the Nation's
public schools.
Third, the common standards development process was informed by
evidence and cutting edge research. Historically, standards were often
based largely on personal judgment. By allowing personal judgment to
determine what concepts are in or out of standards, the process often
became a negotiation, rather than a reflection on what evidence and
research tells us about the connection between K-12 experiences and
success in higher education and promising careers.
Lastly, the common standards are aligned with college and work
expectations. By preparing all students to be both college and career-
ready, all students are able to compete in their post-secondary
education and/or career choice. Preparing all students to be college-
and career-ready is absolutely critical to the long-term success of the
country. By providing a set of expectations that are clear to students,
parents and educators about what it takes to be college and career-
ready, the States have taken a major step forward in producing students
who are ready for later success.
common core standards development process
CCSSO and NGA committed to participating States, territories and
the District of Columbia that the standards development process would
be open and transparent. In April 2009, over 40 States met to discuss
the possibility of creating common core standards in English language
arts and mathematics. Following this meeting, 48 States formally agreed
to join the common core standards development effort and begin a two-
phase process. Phase one: develop college and career readiness
standards. Phase two: create college and career standards through K-12,
grade-by-grade by Spring 2010. Using experts and practitioners from
across the Nation and throughout the world, the States completed the
college and career readiness standards in September 2009. The standards
were reviewed by States, the public, and a range of national
organizations and outside experts. Based upon the college and career-
readiness standards completed late last year, participating States and
the expert development team immediately began development of the grade-
by-grade K-12 standards, successfully releasing the standards for
public comment in March 2010. Public comments were due on April 2 and
the final K-12 expectations will be released next month, allowing
States to begin the adoption and implementation process.
States are responsible for demonstrating that within 3 years they
have fully implemented the standards by developing instructional
supports and aligning assessments. Kentucky has already formally
adopted the common core and we expect a significant number of States to
follow Kentucky's lead later this year.
benefits of common standards: students, parents, and teachers
Common standards are a positive development for all students. The
standards will help equip students with the knowledge and skills needed
to succeed in college and careers. The new standards will also set high
expectations for learning across the Nation, ensuring that all students
must meet a high bar regardless of where they live. The standards will
allow students to more easily transition from one State to another
without losing valuable learning time adjusting to different standards.
Given the mobility of the student population in the United States,
common standards are essential. Also, higher, clearer, and fewer
standards makes the student's responsibilities clear, so that they can
take charge of their own learning.
For parents and other caregivers, common standards will delineate
exactly what their student needs to know and be able to do at each
educational stage. With clearer and fewer standards, parents will be
better positioned to facilitate conversations with their child's
teachers about what they should be learning and how they can reach
their goals creating even more accountability in system.
Finally, common standards will make student expectations clear for
teachers from year to year. The new standards will also enable more
focused educator training and professional development. Effective,
targeted teacher training is paramount, and common standards allow for
teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional development to be
focused on key objectives.
common assessments development
Fewer, clearer, higher common core standards are only the first
step in a longer reform process. The new standards lay the groundwork
for States to collaborate on other key education reforms, including the
development of next generation assessments. As States begin the
standards adoption and implementation process, they are also beginning
the process of developing voluntary shared assessments, which will
increase assessment quality, while also providing tremendous cost
savings and other benefits. Aligned standards and assessments will
allow States aligned teacher preparation and other supports designed to
improve overall student achievement and close achievement gaps.
Teachers from participating States will benefit from high quality
instructional supports and materials that are aligned to the core
standards.
CCSSO and NGA are providing support to two independent State
assessment collaboratives and are working with several organizations to
make sure that materials related to the common standards will be
produced in an effective and open way to allow access to all teachers
and schools. With common core standards and assessments, participating
States can, as appropriate, continue collective reform efforts in
nearly all facets of the education system.
the federal role
To preserve the project's integrity, it is imperative that the
common standards initiative remains a State-led process. There are
appropriate steps, however, the Federal Government can take to support
State and local leadership. The revised Elementary and Secondary
Education Act should reward State leadership and innovation, not just
with funding for assessments, professional development, and other
inputs, but also by codifying a new State-Federal partnership that
promotes innovation and values State judgment on accountability. The
current accountability system established under the No Child Left
Behind Act will undercut movement toward high standards and must be
updated to reflect the evolution of standards-based reform since the
law was signed in 2002. By adopting the college and career-ready common
core standards, States are voluntarily raising the bar for all students
and the Federal Government should acknowledge their leadership by
providing greater flexibility to help States ensure that all students
meet these new higher expectations particularly as they transition
their State accountability systems to the common core.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
committee. I look forward to responding to any comments or questions
you may have about this historic State-led effort.
The Chairman. Dr. Paine, thank you very much.
Now, Dr. Schmeiser, welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA B. SCHMEISER, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, EDUCATION
DIVISION, ACT NATIONAL OFFICE, IOWA CITY, IA
Ms. Schmeiser. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Ranking
Member Enzi, and members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me today to share some information
about ACT's definition of college and career readiness, our
role in the Common Core State Standards Initiative, and our
approach to developing new generation assessments.
ACT, headquartered in your home State of Iowa, Chairman
Harkin, is an independent, not-for-profit organization perhaps
best known for the ACT, which is a widely used college
admissions and placement assessment, but our scope and our
mission has reached far beyond that to all levels of education
and to workforce development, both nationally and
internationally.
ACT's empirical research has defined college readiness as
the acquisition of the knowledge and skills a student needs to
enroll in and succeed in credit-bearing first-year courses at a
post-secondary institution, such as a 2-year, a 4-year, or a
trade school or technical school. Simply stated, readiness for
college means not having to take remedial courses in college.
ACT research also shows that career readiness requires the
same level of knowledge and skills in mathematics and in
reading that college readiness does. Matter of fact, the
majority of jobs that require at least a high school diploma,
provide a living wage for a family of four, are, in fact,
projected to increase in number in the 21st century, and offer
opportunities for career advancement require comparable levels
of knowledge and skill for students entering workforce training
programs as they do for the entering college student.
Compared to high school graduates who are not college
ready, those who are ready to enter credit-bearing college
courses are more likely to enroll in college, stay in college,
earn higher grades, and graduate from college. Unfortunately,
last year, of the 1.5 million students who graduated in 2009
and took the ACT, only 23 percent of those students were
adequately prepared for post-secondary education in all four
subject areas of English, math, reading, and science.
Because of our rich research base and our experience in
college and career readiness, ACT was very pleased to play a
major development role in the State-led common State standards
initiative. The definition of college and career readiness
within the Common Core State Standards Initiative is modeled on
the approach pioneered by ACT.
And one of the most important distinguishing
characteristics, I think, of this initiative is the fact that
the standards were based on longitudinal research, research and
evidence-based. It is an important distinction between the
Common Core standards being research and evidence-based and
what we have seen in State standards in this country. In
addition to ACT's longitudinal research, the evidence was used
from the work of high-performing countries, from high-
performing States, as well as academic research.
Implementation of these standards provides a wonderful
opportunity to better align and improve the educational and
essential foundations of our system in this country around the
goals of college and career readiness and represents a
monumental step toward meeting our national goal of assuring
education equity and excellence for all students. Along with
the implementation, however, comes an important obligation to
validate and to strengthen these standards periodically in an
ongoing validation process.
Moving immediately from standards implementation to
development assessment, I think, ignores some important steps,
such as interpreting these standards into language that
teachers can use and understand in the classroom and providing
educators professional development in how to effectively teach
these standards. Only then can these assessments, as part of an
aligned, linked, and longitudinal system, be effective tools
for students, teachers, administrators, and parents in
monitoring student progress.
It is clear from ACT research that college and career
readiness is a process. It is not a point in time. As such, no
single assessment can effectively meet the needs of all.
Therefore, ACT envisions States moving toward more coherent
systems of assessment, comprised of multiple assessment
measures and types.
Within such a system, each assessment would work with
others to reveal a rich picture of student achievement and
student growth. This will enable us to identify students who
are on target, almost on target, and off target every grade,
every year, allowing educators to tailor instruction to the
needs of each student.
While the next generation assessments represent our highest
expectations, we need to also remain sensitive to the pragmatic
challenges faced by States, districts, and schools. It is
important to strike an important balance between innovation and
sustainability.
Therefore, based on our research, we would offer the
following four recommendations. First, promote college and
career readiness as a fundamental national goal and priority
for all students.
Second, incentivize the implementation of college and
career readiness standards by working with States to develop an
accountability system that will meet their evolving needs.
Third, increase the capability of States, districts, and
schools to use more effectively assessment data to monitor
student progress, to intervene when students are falling
behind, and differentiate instruction to advance college and
career readiness for all students.
And finally, authorize additional resources for States
implementing college and career readiness to develop coherent
systems for assessment that include innovative measures, such
as end-of-course, project-based learning and formative
assessments.
We now have the opportunity to fill the promises that we
have been making to our children for decades that when they
graduate high school, they will be ready for college and work.
ACT research has identified strategies that can help our Nation
meet this goal, and we look forward to helping make college and
career readiness a reality for each and every student through a
reauthorized ESEA.
Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I look
forward to answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schmeiser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia B. Schmeiser, Ph.D.
executive summary
ACT's empirical research defines college readiness as acquisition
of the knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in
credit-bearing, first-year courses at a post-secondary institution,
such as a 2- or 4-year college, trade school, or technical school.
Simply stated, readiness for college means not needing to take remedial
courses in college. ACT research also shows that career readiness
requires the same level of knowledge and skills in mathematics and
reading that college readiness does: the majority of the jobs that
require at least a high school diploma, pay a living wage for a family
of four, are projected to increase in number in the 21st century, and
provide opportunities for career advancement require a level of
knowledge and skills comparable to those expected of the first-year
college student.
Because of our rich research base and expertise on college and
career readiness, ACT was pleased to play a major development role in
the State-led Common Core State Standards Initiative. The definition of
college and career readiness within the Common Core State Standards
Initiative is modeled on the approach pioneered by ACT. Implementation
of those standards provides a remarkable opportunity to better align
and improve the essential foundations of our Nation's education system
around the goal of college and career readiness, and represents a
monumental step toward meeting our National goal of ensuring
educational equity and excellence for all students. Along with
implementation comes the important obligation to validate and
strengthen those standards periodically in an ongoing process. ACT will
be working with States to help establish such a validation process.
The convergent timing of the development of the Common Core
standards and the reauthorization of ESEA has spurred a productive
national dialogue on how we can improve the purposes, design, and use
of assessments in K-12 education. Moving immediately from standards
implementation to the development of assessments ignores some important
steps, such as interpreting those standards into language that teachers
and leaders can understand and providing educators professional
development on how to effectively teach the standards. Only then can
assessments--as part of an aligned, linked, and longitudinal system--be
effective tools for students, teachers, administrators, and parents in
monitoring student progress.
No single assessment will effectively meet the needs of all. ACT
envisions States moving toward more cohesive systems, comprised of
multiple assessment measures and types. Within such a system, each
assessment would work with the others to reveal a rich picture of
student achievement and growth. This will enable us to identify
students who are on target, nearly on target, or off target for college
and career readiness in every grade, allowing educators to intervene
with students who are falling behind.
Our Nation's efforts to strengthen standards and assessments will
set high expectations for learning and provide educators with tools to
monitor and accelerate student progress towards those expectations.
This is a watershed moment in the history of education in our country.
We at ACT look forward to helping make college and career readiness a
reality for each and every student.
______
about act
Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about
ACT's research on college and career readiness and its importance to
the future of our Nation's students.
ACT, Inc. is an independent, not-for-profit organization that
provides assessment, research, information, and program management
services in education and workforce development. We are perhaps best
known for the ACT test, the widely used college admission examination,
but our scope and range go far beyond that one exam. Each year, we
serve millions of individuals in middle schools, high schools,
colleges, professional associations, businesses, and government
agencies both nationally and internationally. Although designed to meet
a wide array of needs, all ACT programs and services have one guiding
purpose: helping people achieve education and workplace success.
For more than 50 years, ACT has collected and reported data on
students' academic readiness for college by following millions of
students into all types of post-secondary education to evaluate their
success through college completion. ACT is the only organization with
decades of data showing exactly what happens to high school graduates
once they get to college or workforce training, based on how well they
were prepared in middle school and high school.
While the attention paid to common college and career readiness
standards and assessments is relatively recent, ACT has been
implementing common standards and common assessments for well over 20
years. We have developed research-based standards that are linked to
actual student success at the post-secondary level. As a result, the
standards we have developed are generally fewer in number and more
rigorous than what is typically found in many States' standards. In
this model, our assessment data are comparable and transportable across
State lines and have strong links to the post-secondary sector. As of
the 2009-2010 school year, our College and Career Readiness System of
vertically aligned assessments for 8th, 10th, and 11th or 12th grade
students has been adopted statewide in 15 States and used at the
district and school levels in all 50 States.
In this regard, our philosophy and approach are unique. Our
assessments are grounded in research that tells us what knowledge and
skills are essential in order for students to be ready for college and
career. In my testimony I will share what we have learned and offer
suggestions for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA).
defining college and career readiness
We are deeply encouraged by the national momentum to elevate the
importance of college and career readiness within the policies and
programs authorized under ESEA. While recognizing that the role of the
Federal Government in education is limited, we do believe that ESEA can
promote equity and excellence in communities nationwide through a
unified goal of ensuring that every student leaves high school ready
for college and career.
A first step toward realizing this goal is to come to agreement on
what constitutes ``college and career readiness.'' While there are many
definitions of college and career readiness, the approach established
through ACT research comes from empirical data.
ACT defines college readiness as acquisition of the knowledge and
skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing, first-
year courses at a post-secondary institution, such as a 2- or 4-year
college, trade school, or technical school. Simply stated, readiness
for college means not needing to take remedial courses in post-
secondary education or training programs.
Unfortunately, there are far too many in this country who believe
that the level of achievement needed for high school graduates who want
to enter workforce training programs is far less than that needed for
those students who plan to enter some form of post-secondary education.
ACT research shows that career readiness requires the same level of
foundational knowledge and skills in mathematics and reading that
college readiness does. According to our research, the majority of the
jobs that require at least a high school diploma, pay a living wage for
a family of four, are projected to increase in number in the 21st
century, and provide opportunities for career advancement require a
level of knowledge and skills comparable to those expected of the
first-year college student. The level of knowledge and skills students
need when they graduate from high school is the same whether they plan
to enter post-secondary education or a workforce training program for
jobs that offer salaries above the poverty line.
What we have learned through our research is the critical
importance that college and career readiness plays in college success.
Compared to high school graduates who are not college- and career-
ready, those who are ready to enter credit-bearing college courses are
more likely to enroll in college, stay in college, earn good grades,
and persist to a college degree. And in our latest research study soon
to be released, we found that gaps in college success among racial/
ethnic groups and by family income narrow significantly among students
who are ready for college and career.
There is still much work to be done to ensure that all students
graduate high school with this level of readiness. Of the 1.5 million
high school graduates who took the ACT during academic year 2008-2009,
33 percent were not ready for college-level English, 47 percent were
not ready for college social science, 58 percent were not ready for
College Algebra, and 72 percent were not ready for college Biology.
Overall, only 23 percent were ready to enter college-level courses
without remediation in any of the four subject areas.
The remainder of my testimony will focus on the two issues at hand
today: standards and assessments.
Allow me to first point out that the natural progression in
building a cohesive, aligned educational system is not directly from
standards to assessments, but rather from standards, to interpreting
those standards into language that teachers and leaders can understand,
to providing educators professional development on how to effectively
teach the standards, to assessments that measure student progress
linked to the standards, all followed by data monitoring and reporting
to evaluate student progress and guide instruction. Therefore, I
caution us to not make the assumption that standards and assessments--
alone--are sufficient in and of themselves in ensuring college and
career readiness for all students.
implementing the common core state standards
ACT has played a major role in the State-led Common Core State
Standards Initiative, which seeks to articulate ``fewer, clearer, and
higher'' K-12 education standards for voluntary adoption by States. The
definition of college and career readiness within the Common Core State
Standards Initiative is modeled on the approach pioneered by ACT.
Endowed with extraordinary leadership from our Nation's governors and
education chiefs, we believe that the Common Core initiative can be a
catalyst for realizing the goal of preparing all students for college
and career. I would like to address briefly some of the opportunities
presented by this initiative.
In our view, the Common Core standards are of high quality, are
easy to understand, and provide educators at the local level with the
necessary flexibility to tailor instruction, curriculum, and
professional development based on their own unique needs and contexts.
The widespread enthusiasm for the draft common standards is a testament
to the robust and open process that the initiative leaders established,
and the hard work of many organizations and individuals from all over
the Nation in developing, critiquing, and improving these standards.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Common Core State
Standards Initiative is its insistence that evidence lead the way,
rather than relying on subjective opinions about what students should
be able to know and do when they leave high school. Not only did the
initiative draw on ACT's longitudinal research on what knowledge and
skills students need to succeed in post-secondary education and
workforce training, but it sought additional evidence such as research
from high-performing countries, standards from high-performing States,
academic research on learning progressions, and other resources to
support the inclusion of each and every standard within the Common Core
framework.
Merely developing college and career readiness standards is not
sufficient in and of itself. Along with development of standards comes
the important obligation to validate and strengthen those standards
periodically in an ongoing process. The linkage between college and
career readiness and success in post-secondary education and training,
which has been a hallmark of ACT research, must now become a national
priority. States have an obligation to ensure, through empirical
validation--such as valuable feedback from post-secondary and workforce
institutions to high schools about how well prepared their graduates
were for college and career--that the level of readiness to which they
are educating their students is continually being documented as
sufficient preparation. ACT will be working with States to help
establish such a validation process.
Further, our support of the Common Core initiative is predicated on
the belief that this State-led movement provides a remarkable
opportunity to better align and improve the essential foundations of
our Nation's education system around this ambitious goal. We envision a
future in which States, districts, and schools have fully aligned and
integrated the core elements of their education infrastructure,
including:
expectations of what students need to learn and achieve
through college and career readiness standards;
instructional frameworks that broadly guide high-quality
teaching and learning;
rich and engaging classroom curricula and content;
assessments aligned to college and career readiness
standards and to what is taught in the classroom;
systematic use of student data to improve teaching and
learning;
longitudinal data systems that enable the ongoing
monitoring of student progress, allowing educators to identify students
who are falling behind and accelerate them toward college and career
readiness; and
cohesive professional development programs for teachers
and school leaders.
This opportunity to better align these elements--particularly in
areas where there is a significant disconnect--would represent a
monumental step toward meeting our national goal of ensuring
educational equity and excellence for all students.
While ACT advocates for the better alignment of standards,
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, we also fully realize that a
one-size-fits-all model is unlikely to be successful given the
remarkable diversity of our Nation's 15,000 school districts.
Ultimately, the success of this initiative will rest with the educators
and community members at the State and district levels who will be
responsible for incorporating the standards into daily practice, making
decisions about instruction and curriculum, and guiding each and every
student toward college and career readiness.
Obviously, for many States and districts the transition to
incorporating college and career readiness standards into daily
practice will not happen overnight. We should recognize that many
districts across the country will require additional capacity--both
financial and human--to manage the transition to fewer, clearer, and
higher standards.
For school, district, and State education leaders implementing the
Common Core State Standards, there are several ways ESEA can provide
critical assistance:
promote college and career readiness as a fundamental
national goal and priority for all students;
support States, districts, and schools in developing
monitoring systems that tell educators whether students are on target
for college and career readiness at each grade level so that they can
intervene when students fall behind academically; and
incentivize the implementation of college and career
readiness standards by working with States to develop an accountability
system that will meet their evolving demands and allow for nuanced--not
one-size-fits-all--evaluations of student achievement.
improving state assessment systems
The timing for the development of common standards and the
reauthorization of ESEA has spurred a productive national dialogue on
how we can improve the purposes, design, and use of assessments in K-12
education. ACT has used this opportunity to consult with State and
local stakeholders to discuss what our own next-generation system
should look like so that we can continue to be responsive to their
current and future needs. I want to share some of what we have been
learning from a wide variety of ACT stakeholders.
We know that no single assessment instrument is perfectly suited
for meeting all of the purposes that teachers, education leaders, and
policymakers have for assessment. When various assessment types are
used in combination, they can provide a more comprehensive portrait of
student and school progress than we have had in the past. We believe
that it is possible to strike the appropriate balances among assessment
types to meet the multiple and varied needs of educators and
policymakers while adhering to the highest professional standards.
We envision States moving toward more cohesive systems, comprised
of multiple assessment measures and assessment types such as formative,
interim, end-of-course, summative, and project-based assessments. While
the widespread adoption of college and career readiness standards will
help facilitate stronger alignment among the components of the
assessment system, the assessments should also be designed from the
start to be compatible with one another. Within such a system, each
assessment would work with the others to reveal a richer picture of
student achievement and growth, rather than operate in isolation. Such
assessments enable us to identify students who are on target, nearly on
target, or off target for college and career readiness, allowing
educators to intervene with students who are falling behind.
The new generation of assessments should represent our highest
aspirations while remaining sensitive to the pragmatic challenges faced
by educators at the local and State levels: financial and human
resources, access to necessary technology for computer-based testing,
and educational practice. While the national dialogue on future
assessment is focused on the promise of innovation, we recognize that
even minor decisions about assessment design can have a significant
impact on cost, complexity of administration, and scoring and
reporting. In short, we need to strike an appropriate balance between
innovation and sustainability.
What we have learned from State, district, and school leaders is
informing ACT's development process as we move toward a next-generation
assessment system. I hope that some of these lessons will be helpful to
the committee in the reauthorization of ESEA:
1. College and career readiness is a process, not a single point in
time. Growth and progress toward readiness must be monitored over a
student's educational experience, starting in elementary school and
through high school, so that timely instructional decisions and
interventions can be made.
2. Assessments need to be part of a system that is aligned, linked,
and longitudinal in nature if it is to be an effective tool for
students, teachers, administrators, and parents in monitoring student
progress. We must be exceptionally clear in defining the purposes,
uses, and limits of effective assessment.
3. State assessment systems should include not only measures of
academic achievement and growth, but also measures of those academic
behaviors that influence readiness and educational and career planning.
4. The unique needs of English Language Learners and students with
disabilities should be incorporated from the start of the assessment
design process and with the deep consultation of stakeholders and
experts.
5. Assessment formats should be varied according to the type of
achievement that needs to be measured. These multiple measures can be
used to offer more comprehensive evaluations of student achievement,
from multiple-choice and constructed-response assessments to project-
based learning.
6 Assessment should be offered through multiple platforms. While
computer-based testing is highly applicable to formative assessments
that can be conducted on an on-demand basis, paper-and-pencil testing
may be a reality for States and districts with less technological
capacity. Until computer access for such large groups of students is
more available in schools, we need to use both platforms flexibly and
wisely.
7. Ongoing, real-time, interactive reporting and access to data by
multiple stakeholders--especially teachers--is essential if
stakeholders are to get the most out of assessment results.
Given our experience at implementing high-quality assessments tied
to college and career readiness standards, ACT offers the following
recommendations for the State assessment component of ESEA
reauthorization:
continue to improve summative State assessments for the
purposes of student monitoring and accountability measured against the
standards;
authorize additional resources for States implementing
college and career readiness standards to develop coherent systems of
assessment that include innovative measures such as end-of-course,
project-based, and formative assessments; and
increase the capability of States, districts, and schools
to more effectively use assessment data to monitor student progress,
intervene when students are falling behind, and differentiate
instruction to advance college and career readiness for all students.
Taken together, our Nation's efforts to strengthen standards and
assessments will be a critically important accomplishment, but are
merely two essential pieces of the puzzle. Improvements to standards
and assessments will not in and of themselves result in dramatic
improvements in student outcomes. Rather, they set high expectations
for learning and provide educators with tools to monitor student
progress towards those expectations. What we have learned from high-
performing countries and high-performing districts domestically is
that, in order to succeed at improving the college and career readiness
of our students, we must develop an aligned and coherent system of
standards, curriculum and instruction, assessment, professional
development, and student support programs, with all of these components
contributing to an authentic process of continuous improvement in all
phases of daily educational practice.
To say that we are experiencing a watershed moment in the history
of education in our country is an understatement. We are poised to make
incredible progress in advancing the preparation of our Nation's
students for college and career. We have an opportunity to fulfill the
promises we have been making to our children for decades--that when
they graduate from high school they will be ready for college and work.
ACT's research has identified strategies that can help our Nation meet
this goal. There is still much to be done, and a reauthorized ESEA can
help accomplish it. We look forward to helping make college and career
readiness a reality for each and every student.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
references
Focusing on the Essentials for College and Career Readiness--Policy
Implications of the ACT National Curriculum Survey Results 2009
(http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/
NCS_PolicySummary2009.pdf).
College Readiness--ACT Research on College and Career Readiness:
A Summary of Findings (http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/
pdf/NCS_PolicySummary2009.pdf).
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Schmeiser, very much.
Now we turn to Dr. Phillips. Dr. Gary Phillips.
STATEMENT OF GARY PHILLIPS, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member
Enzi, and members of the committee, for the invitation to be
here today.
My name is Gary Phillips. I am a vice president and chief
scientist at the American Institutes for Research.
I would like to make two central points about No Child Left
Behind and the reauthorization of the ESEA. First, No Child
Left Behind has a large loophole that has misled the public,
and I encourage Congress to close this loophole in the
reauthorization of the ESEA. Second, Congress should encourage
States to abandon their outmoded 20th century tests for a new
generation of technology-based tests that more accurately
measure growth, that are less burdensome, that are faster and
cheaper.
To my first point, the most significant thing wrong with No
Child Left Behind is a lack of transparency. The consequences
of failing to meet adequate yearly progress had the unintended
consequence of encouraging States to lower, rather than raise,
their own standards. The law inadvertently encouraged the
States to dumb down their performance standards to get high
rates of proficiency.
The fact that States dumb down their performance standards
can be seen in the figures, Figures 1 and 2, in my full
statement that I provided to you. The percent proficient in
these graphs represent what was reported by No Child Left
Behind in mathematics in 2007. Using Grade 8 as an example,
according to No Child Left Behind, Tennessee is the highest-
achieving State in the Nation, while Massachusetts is one of
the lowest.
There is something wrong with this picture. According to
NAEP, exactly the opposite is true. Massachusetts is the
highest-achieving State in the Nation, with Tennessee being one
of the lowest. I say this with due respect to Senator Lamar
Alexander.
If we look deeper into the State standards, we begin to
explain this contradiction. The grades imposed on the charts in
the figures I provided to you are from an upcoming report from
AIR titled ``The Expectations Gap'' that internationally
benchmarked the State standards and internationally benchmarked
those standards to the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study, TIMSS. In other words, it benchmarked the
standards internationally.
Returning to Grade 8, in my full statement, we see that
many States obtain high levels of proficiency by lowering their
standards. The States with the highest levels of proficiency
require only a D, which is comparable in difficulty to the
lowest level of mathematics on TIMSS.
In fact, the correlation between the percent proficient and
the level of the standard is negative 0.8. This means as States
lower their standards, they raise their level of reported
proficiency.
The difference in the State standard is not just a minor
accounting irregularity. It has real equity consequences for
students' opportunity to learn. If my child attends school in a
State where almost everyone is proficient, what leverage do I
have as a parent to ask the State to provide a more challenging
education?
How big is this expectation gap, the difference between the
highest and lowest standards across the State? This gap is more
than twice the size of the national black-white achievement
gap. The Nation will never be able to close the achievement gap
until it reduces this bigger gap and all States adopt higher
standards.
This helps explain why we do so poorly on international
comparisons. Many States think they are doing well and feel no
urgency to improve because almost all their students are
proficient. They have no idea how they stack up when compared
to peers outside of their own borders.
And now to my second point. The outmoded pencil and paper
tests used in most States are costly and time consuming. States
claim they teach 21st century skills, but they measure learning
with 20th century tests. The only way States will modernize and
take advantage of high-speed technology is with Federal
funding.
Furthermore, the outmoded testing paradigm provides poor
measurement for a large portion of students in the population.
These tests are too easy for the highest achieving students,
and they are too hard for the lowest achieving students,
especially students with disabilities and English language
learners.
The $350 million from the Race to the Top assessment fund
and the reauthorization of the ESEA could provide an
unprecedented opportunity for States to upgrade their testing
capacity. I would recommend that the ESEA encourage the future
consortia of States to use computer-adaptive testing as their
standard modus operandi.
These types of tests are already in partial use in many
States. However, in three States--Delaware, Hawaii, and
Oregon--the entire State testing program is already computer
adaptive. Since AIR is the vendor in these three States, I can
speak with some authority on how these tests operate.
In all three of these States, the tests consist of multiple
choice and challenging constructed response items that are both
administered and scored by the computer. There are no printing
costs, no scoring costs. In fact, the long-run total cost of
the system is half that of paper and pencil tests.
In each of these three States, the test is developed based
on universal design principles, and the test content is the
same for each student that is tested. The technology platform
provides three opportunities to take the test each year. In
addition, teachers can develop their own formative assessment,
and interim assessments are also provided, all computer
adaptive and all on the same scale as the summative test. The
results are available for each student within 15 seconds.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to give you my views on the next generation of
State assessments. Setting internationally competitive
education standards is a critical national priority.
Students tomorrow will not be competing with the best
students in their school. They will be competing with the best
students in the world. In order to get States to establish high
standards, you must close the expectations loophole in No Child
Left Behind and reward States that set high internationally
benchmarked standards.
States also need Federal funding in order to embrace the
next generation of technology-driven assessments. The
technology for better, faster, and cheaper testing is already
here. National leadership is needed to move the States in this
direction.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary W. Phillips, Ph.D.
summary
I would like to make two central points about No Child Left Behind
and the reauthorization of the ESEA. (1) No Child Left Behind has a
large loop hole that has misled the public and I encourage Congress to
close this loop hole in the reauthorization of the ESEA. (2) I will
propose that Congress encourage States to abandon their outmoded 20th
century paper/pencil tests for a new generation of 21st century
technology-based tests that are more accurate, less burdensome, faster,
and cheaper.
The most significant thing wrong with NCLB is a lack of
transparency. The severe consequences of failing to meet AYP had the
unintended consequence of encouraging States to lower, rather than
raise, their own standards. The law inadvertently encouraged the States
to dumb down their performance standards to get high rates of
proficiency. The fact that States dumb down their performance standards
can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 in this document. The ``percent
proficient'' in these tables represent what was reported by NCLB in
Grades 4 and 8 in mathematics in 2007. Using Grade 8 as an example, we
see that Tennessee is the highest achieving State in the Nation while
Massachusetts is one of the lowest. However, if we look deeper into
State performance standards, we see a different story. The grades
imposed on the chart are from an upcoming AIR report titled ``The
Expectation Gap'' that internationally benchmarked State proficient
standards to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). Returning to Figures 1 and 2, we see that many States obtain
high levels of proficiency by lowering their standards. The States with
the highest levels of proficiency require only a D, which is comparable
to the lowest level of mathematics knowledge and skills on TIMSS. In
fact, the correlation between the percent proficient reported by the
State and the difficulty of their standards is ^.81. The gap in
expectations in the State performance standards is not just a minor
accounting irregularity. It has real equity consequences for a
student's opportunity to learn. If my child attends school in a State
where almost everyone is proficient, what leverage do I have as a
parent to ask the State to provide a more challenging education? The
expectations gap has major educational consequences. This expectation
gap is so large that it is more than twice the size of the national
black-white achievement gap. The Nation will never be able to close the
achievement gap until it closes the bigger problem of the expectations
gap. This helps explain why the United States does poorly on
international comparisons. Many States think they are doing well and
feel no urgency to improve because almost all their students are
proficient. They have no idea how they stack up when compared to peers
outside their own Lake Woebegone. This also helps explain why almost 40
percent of students entering college need remedial courses. They
thought they were college ready because they passed their high school
graduation test--but they were not.
The outmoded paper/pencil tests used in most States are costly and
time consuming. States claim they teach 21st century skills but they
measure learning with 20th century tests. The only way State testing
will move into the 21st century and take advantage of high-speed modern
technology is with Federal funding. Furthermore, the current model of
one-size-fits-all, paper/pencil test provides poor measurement for much
of the student population. The tests are too easy for high-achieving
students and too hard for low-achieving students, students with
disabilities, and English language learners. The $350 million from the
Race to the Top Assessment Program and the reauthorization of the ESEA
could provide an unprecedented opportunity for States to upgrade their
testing capacity. I would recommend that the ESEA encourage the
consortia of States to use Computer-Adaptive Testing as their standard
modus operandi. Computer-adaptive tests are already in partial use in
many States. However, in three States--Delaware, Hawaii, and Oregon--
the entire State testing program is already computer-adaptive. In all
three of these States, the test consists of multiple-choice items and
challenging constructed-response items that are both administered and
scored by computer (no printing cost and no scoring cost). The total
cost of the computer-adaptive test is half that of a paper/pencil test.
In each of these three States, the computer-adaptive test is developed
based on universal design principles, and each test administered to a
student covers all of the content standards. The technology platform
provides three opportunities to take the summative test each year (used
for accountability and Federal reporting). In addition, the computer-
adaptive test administers teacher-developed formative assessments and
interim assessments all on the same scale as the summative test. The
results are available for each student within 15 seconds.
______
Thank you Chairman Harkin and members of the committee for the
invitation to be here today. My name is Gary W. Phillips, and I am a
Vice President and Chief Scientist at the American Institutes for
Research (AIR). AIR is a 65-year-old, not-for-profit, nonpartisan
organization whose mission is to conduct behavioral and social science
research to improve people's lives and well-being, with a special
emphasis on the disadvantaged. Previously, I was the Acting
Commissioner at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). My
career has been devoted to providing policymakers with better data to
help them improve American education.
Today I would like to make two central points about No Child Left
Behind and the reauthorization of the ESEA.
1. I will demonstrate that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has a large
loop hole that has misled the public and I encourage Congress to close
this loop hole in the reauthorization of the ESEA. Other people will be
providing you testimony on whether this legislative act will improve
education. I will focus on whether this legislative act provides enough
information to know if education has been improved.
2. I will propose that Congress encourage States to abandon their
out-moded 20th century paper/pencil-based testing paradigm for a new
generation of 21st century technology-based tests that are more
accurate, less burdensome, faster, and cheaper.
what is wrong with no child left behind?
The most significant thing wrong with NCLB is a lack of
transparency. Contributing to this lack of transparency is the fact
that the NCLB results represent State efforts to reach unattainable
national goals. For the last quarter century, education reform
professionals have known that our underachieving educational system has
put our Nation at risk (A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education
Reform, April 1983). National policymakers have responded to this
crisis with slogans and unattainable utopian goals, such as ``being the
first in the world in mathematics and science achievement by 2000''
(1990 National Education Goals Panel); or ``all students will be
proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014'' (No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001); or ``by 2020 . . . ensure that every student graduates
from high school well prepared for college and a career'' (A Blueprint
for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, 2010). A national goal should be high but reachable. A
good example of a challenging but achievable national goal is the
Proficient standard used by the National Assessment of Educational
progress (NAEP) and the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The
Proficient standard is challenging but achievable by most (although not
all) students. The new ESEA should contain career and college-ready
national goals that are internationally competitive but not so high
that they are unattainable by States and schools.
The greatest contributor to the lack of transparency in NCLB,
however, is the misleading data used by policymakers to monitor
progress toward the goals (referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress).
Both the Federal Government and the States have an unfortunate history
of presenting flawed State testing data to the public.
From 1984 to 1989, the U.S. Department of Education compared State
performance using the Wall Chart that showed average State aggregates
of SAT and ACT scores. The Wall Chart was used even though it was
widely criticized because it measured only the self-selected college-
bound population. The larger the percentage of the population taking
the SAT or ACT tests, the lower the State's ranking on the Wall Chart.
The States with the least number of students heading for college tended
to have the highest ranking. In fact, the 1986 correlation between the
SAT and the proportion of college-bound students was ^0.86 (College
Board, 1986). The fact that it was a misleading indicator due to self-
selection did not deter the department from using the system for 6
years under two Secretaries of Education, Terrell H. Bell and William
J. Bennett.
In 1987, a West Virginia physician produced a report in which he
stated that he had found that on norm-referenced tests, all 50 States
were claiming they were above the national average (Cannell, 1987).
This so-called Lake Woebegone report sparked much interest in
Washington because it was hoped that norm-referenced tests might
overcome some of the problems of the SAT and ACT in the Wall Chart as
indicators of State-by-State performance. Although this was a black eye
for educators, the practice continues today. States are still asked to
explain how they can be above the national average on their norm-
referenced test when they are below the national average on the
National Assessment of Educational progress (NAEP).
The biggest flaw in State testing data, however, is in use today in
all States, sanctioned and encouraged by the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001. NCLB provides a new type of Wall Chart where again State
aggregates are not comparable and are misleading. The most significant
thing wrong with NCLB is a lack of transparency. The severe
consequences of failing to meet AYP had the unintended consequence of
encouraging States to lower, rather than raise, their own standards.
The law inadvertently encouraged the States to dumb down their
performance standards to get high rates of proficiency. The fact that
States dumb down their performance standards can be seen in Figures 1
and 2 in this document. The ``percent proficient'' in these tables
represent what was reported by NCLB in Grades 4 and 8 in mathematics in
2007. In my remaining remarks I will use Grade 8 to illustrate my
points. In Grade 8 we see that Tennessee is the highest achieving State
in the Nation while Massachusetts is one of the lowest. If parents were
looking to raise a family in a State with an excellent track record of
success based on NCLB data, they should move their family to Tennessee.
However, there is something wrong with this picture. We know that NAEP
reports exactly the opposite with Massachusetts the highest achieving
State and Tennessee being one of the lowest achieving States.
However, if we look deeper into State performance standards, we can
begin to explain this contradiction. The grades imposed on the chart
are from an upcoming AIR report titled ``The Expectation Gap'' that
internationally benchmarked State proficient standards to the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Phillips, 2010).
The report then expressed the international benchmarks as international
grades. To do this I statistically linked the test in each State to the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and
expressed the State standards as international grades on a comparable
scale. (A = Advanced, B = High, C = Intermediate, D = Low). This gives
policymakers an international benchmarked common metric by which to
compare State performance standards. Returning to Grade 8 we see that
many States obtain high levels of proficiency by lowering their
standards. The States with the highest levels of proficiency require
only a D, which is comparable to being below the Basic standard on NAEP
and the lowest level of mathematics knowledge and skills on TIMSS. On
the other hand, the States with the lowest levels of proficiency
require the highest standards (where a B is comparable to the
Proficient standard on NAEP and equal to the High level on TIMSS). In
fact, the correlation between the percent proficient reported by the
State under NCLB and the difficulty of their standards is ^.81.
The gap in expectations in the State performance standards is not
just a minor accounting irregularity. It has real equity consequences
for a student's opportunity to learn. If my child attends school in a
State where almost everyone is proficient, what leverage do I have as a
parent to ask the State to provide a more challenging education? The
gap in expectations has major educational consequences. The difference
between the standards in Massachusetts and the standards of the States
with the lowest standards is about two standard deviations. This gap in
expectations is so large that I would like to take a minute to impress
on you just how large it is.
1. This expectation gap is so large that it is more than twice the
size of the national black-white achievement gap. The Nation will never
be able to close the achievement gap until it closes the bigger problem
of the expectations gap.
2. The gap in expectations represents two-to-three grade-level
differences between what the States are expecting their students to
know and be able to do. What the low-standard States are expecting in
middle school is comparable in difficulty to what Massachusetts
expected back in elementary school.
3. The Massachusetts proficient standard is at the 54th percentile.
If Massachusetts used the Tennessee proficient standard in
Massachusetts it would be at the 4th percentile.
This helps explain why the United States does poorly on
international comparisons. Many States think they are doing well and
feel no urgency to improve because almost all their students are
proficient. They have no idea how they stack up when compared to peers
outside their own Lake Woebegone. This also helps explain why almost 40
percent of students entering college need remedial courses. They
thought they were college-ready because they passed their high school
graduation test--but they were not.
We should note that not all States are achieving high rates of
proficiency by lowering their standards. For example, Hawaii is a small
and relatively poor State that has made the right policy decision that
is in the best interest of its children by requiring high standards
(just under those in Massachusetts), although student performance is
relatively low. Even though the State has been internally criticized
for having too high standards, the State leadership has maintained the
high standards and the student's performance in Hawaii have gradually
improved (as indicated by their NAEP scores) over the years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
How would the 2007 State results reported to NCLB have looked had
all the States used a common performance standard that was comparable
in difficulty to the High International Benchmark on TIMSS? Had this
been done, then all of the States would have reported their percent
proficient based on performance standards of comparable difficulty
using a level playing field. Figure 4 gives an example of what this
might have looked like for Grade 8 mathematics--a dramatically
different picture of State performance. We see that when all the States
use an internationally competitive common performance standard, the
performance in Tennessee drops from 88 percent to 21 percent. Now
Massachusetts is the highest achieving State. If the parents mentioned
above were using the information shown in Figure 4 to choose a State in
which to live, where their children would attend schools with the
highest educational expectations and achievement, they might choose
Massachusetts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
the need for a new generation of technology-based state testing
NCLB requires that States develop their own tests but does not
provide funding for doing so. Therefore, States suffering budget
cutbacks have no incentive to try new and better approaches to testing.
The outdated pencil/paper tests used in most States require costly and
time-consuming administration, followed by costly and time-consuming
scoring, followed by costly and time-consuming reporting. With spring
testing, getting test results back to teachers and parents before the
summer recess is nearly impossible. States like to claim they teach
21st century skills but they measure learning with 20th century tests.
The only way State testing will move into the 21st century and take
advantage of high-speed modern technology is with Federal funding.
Furthermore, the current model of one-size-fits-all, paper/pencil test
provides poor measurement for much of the student population. The tests
are too easy for high-achieving students and too hard for low-achieving
students, students with disabilities, and English language learners.
The $350 million from the Race to the Top Assessment Program and
the reauthorization of the ESEA could provide an unprecedented
opportunity for States to upgrade their testing capacity. In the near
future, many States are likely to function as consortia and adopt the
Common Core Standards developed by the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA). I would
recommend that the ESEA encourage the consortia of States to use
Computer-Adaptive Testing as their standard modus operandi.
Computer-adaptive tests are already in partial use in many States.
However, in three States--Delaware, Hawaii, and Oregon--the entire
State testing program are already computer-adaptive. Since AIR is the
vendor for these three States I can speak with some authority on how
their computer-adaptive tests operate. In all three of these States,
the test consists of multiple-choice items and challenging constructed-
response items that are both administered and scored by computer (no
booklet printing cost and no scoring cost). The total cost of the
computer-adaptive test is half that of a paper/pencil test. In each of
these three States, the computer-adaptive test is developed based on
universal design principles, and each test administered to a student
covers all of the content standards. The technology platform provides
three opportunities to take the summative test each year (used for
accountability and Federal reporting). In addition, the computer-
adaptive test administers formative assessments (developed and used by
teachers for diagnostic purposes) and interim assessments (used by
teachers to get an early fix on how much students are progressing
during the year) all on the same scale as the summative test. The
results are available for each student within 15 seconds. Not only are
these assessments faster and cheaper, but computer-adaptive testing
yields more accurate measurement for high- and low-achieving students
and better measurement for students with disabilities and English
language learners.
what should be included in the reauthorization of esea?
Common content standards and common performance standards should be
included in the reauthorization of ESEA. The CCSSO and the NGA are
currently developing common content standards. Content standards
represent the scope and sequence of content that should be taught in
the schools. This is an important first step in creating transparency
and accountability in ESEA. However, this needs to be followed by an
equally important second step--establishing common performance
standards. Performance standards represent how much, of what is taught,
students are expected to learn. Because every student cannot learn
everything that is taught in every grade and every subject, educators
need a realistic performance goal. This performance standard needs to
be common to all the States (or consortium of States) so that all the
States have a level playing field. Each State does not get to set its
own bar. The United States cannot be internationally competitive in our
educational achievement if States are going in 50 different directions
(different content standards) and have 50 different expectations of
what their students should learn (different performance standards).
Computer-adaptive testing and the use of the best available modern
technology should be included in the reauthorization of the ESEA. The
reauthorized ESEA should encourage and fund States to use modern
technology to administer, score, and report results. The best of all
options is computer-adaptive testing that provides a more reliable
measurement of student achievement involving less time, fewer items,
and less cost. Computer-adaptive testing also provides better
measurement for both high-achieving students and low-achieving students
such as students with disabilities and English language learners.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
give you my views on the next generation of State assessments. Setting
internationally competitive education standards is a critical national
priority. Students tomorrow will not be competing with the best
students in their school. They will be competing with the best students
in the world. In order to get States to establish high standards you
must close the expectations loop hole in NCLB and reward States that
set high internationally benchmarked standards. States also need
Federal funding in order to embrace the next generation of technology-
driven assessments. The technology for better, faster and cheaper
testing already exists. National leadership is needed to move the
States in this direction.
References
Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., and McLaughlin, D. (2009).
Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007
(NCES 2010-456). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC.
Cannell, J.J., (1987), Nationally Normed Elementary Achievement Testing
in America's Public Schools: How All 50 States Are Above the
National Average, Friends for Education, Daniels, WV.
College Board, (1986), Press statement for release of 1986 SAT scores.
New York: The College Board.
Phillips, G.W., (2010), The Expectation Gap: Internationally
Benchmarking State Performance Standards, American Institutes for
Research, Washington, DC.
The Chairman. Well, Dr. Phillips, thank you very much for
that thought-provoking statement.
Next, we turn to Dr. Rivera. Dr. Rivera, welcome. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHARLENE RIVERA, Ed.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE IN
EDUCATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA
Ms. Rivera. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and
members of the HELP Committee. I am very pleased to be here
today to have this opportunity to speak to you about this
issue.
I am Charlene Rivera, research professor at the George
Washington University and executive director of the Center for
Equity and Excellence in Education at the university.
Many years ago, I was a bilingual teacher in the Boston
Public Schools and now have the opportunity to conduct research
that relates to English language learners.
I am pleased to offer my perspective on how the Common Core
standards and assessments should address and measure academic
outcomes for English language learners. I also would like to
address the challenges faced in developing assessments that can
support teaching and learning for these students.
Initially, however, it is very important for all of us to
really know who these English language learners are. And while
constructing a coherent system of standards, instruction, and
assessment that can address all these students, including
English language learners, it is important to take into account
the need for the Common Core standards and new assessment
system or systems to recognize and address the linguistic needs
of these students.
To recognize that English language learners need
instruction in academic language to acquire subject matter
proficiency--and I am defining academic language as the
language that is used in school to help students acquire and
use knowledge--to acknowledge that English language proficiency
standards and assessments are distinct from English language
arts standards and assessments, and finally, to recognize that
implementation is key to success of the new system.
English language learners are not a homogenous group, and
attention to their different characteristics is essential to
helping them succeed and be college ready. These students
differ in their level of English language proficiency, ethnic
background, socioeconomic status, quality of prior schooling,
and literacy level in their first language.
Many English language learners are economically and
educationally disadvantaged and attend high-poverty schools.
These schools often lack the educational resources and
personnel knowledgeable about how to teach these students.
Effectively educating English language learners requires
adjusting or differentiating instructional approaches, content
instruction, and assessment.
The Common Core standards and new assessment system must
address the linguistic needs of these students. However,
because the English language arts standards are developed with
native English-speaking students in mind, it is important to
consider the role and use of English language proficiency
standards and assessments.
It will be important to articulate the relationship and to
clearly delineate expectations for when instruction in English
language arts versus English language proficiency is
appropriate for English language learners. This specification
should be established in every State or consortium of States by
a working committee of English language learner and English
language arts experts.
This group should use data to determine at what point along
the continuum of learning English, English language learners at
low levels of English language proficiency should be held
accountable for English language arts standards. For these
students, it is seriously worth considering substituting the
English language proficiency reading and writing standards and
assessments as measures of reading and writing achievement, at
least for a short period of time.
With regard to the Common Core mathematic standards, it is
important to consider whether these students need to be
addressed only in English--or whether these standards need to
be addressed only in English or if they can also be addressed
in students' native languages.
Successful implementation of the new system requires
changes to teacher preparation and in-service professional
development programs. These programs must build the capacity of
content and English as a second language for teachers to
differentiate instruction and classroom assessment and, in
addition, to teach the academic language required for English
language learners to be successful in academic content.
English language learner experts must be involved at every
level of design and implementations. States should consider the
needs of English language learners in the new standards and
assessment system. State policies must address how these
students are identified and address procedures for including
and accommodating students in summative benchmark and classroom
assessments. Most importantly, the new assessment system must
be valid and reliable for all students, including English
language learners.
At the Federal level, the Department of Education needs to
improve the review and monitoring of the standards and
consortium assessment systems. It is crucial that the review
processes explicitly address English language learners and that
the reviewers have the necessary expertise and knowledge to
evaluate the adequacy of the assessment system for these
students.
In conclusion, the design of assessment and accountability
systems and their implementation must address the linguistic
diversity and other characteristics of English language
learners. To be successful, the system must ensure that the
standards and assessment processes address academic language as
well as English language proficiency. It must be recognized
that academic language is a barrier for English language
learners and needs to be taught explicitly.
I have great expectations for the ESEA reauthorization and
look forward to an interconnected system of standards,
instruction, and assessment that works for all students,
including English language learners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charlene Rivera, Ed.D.
summary
It is imperative that the needs of English language learners (ELLs)
are addressed in the reauthorization of ESEA. ELLs are not a homogenous
group and attention to their different characteristics is essential to
meaningfully instructing and assessing them.
Although English language proficiency (ELP) and English language
arts (ELA) are related and even list the same skills (listening,
reading, and writing), presumptions about students' background and
basic competencies in English differ. For ELLs at low levels of ELP it
is worth considering substituting the ELP reading and writing standards
and assessments as measures of their reading and writing achievement.
A crucial factor for ELLs to meet standards is being able to
understand and use the academic language or academic English of
different disciplines. While a mastery of academic language is
demanding for all students, it can be especially difficult for students
who already struggle with other linguistic challenges, such as ELLs and
former ELLs. In a reauthorized ESEA, resources should be allotted to
States to work toward the development of a broad national framework
that captures the many dimensions of academic English.
States should consider the needs of ELLs in the new standards and
assessment system. Policies must address how ELLs are defined, and
address procedures for including and accommodating them in summative,
benchmark, and classroom assessments. There is great need to clearly
distinguish the linguistic needs of ELLs from cognitive, processing, or
physical needs of students with disabilities. The delineation of policy
at the State and consortium levels is important and should guide
practice for the new assessment system which must be valid and reliable
for all students including ELLs.
At the Federal level, ED must improve the review and monitoring of
the standards and assessment systems. It is crucial that the review
processes explicitly address ELLs and that the reviewers have the
appropriate expertise and knowledge.
In conclusion, the design of assessment and accountability systems
and their implementation must consider the linguistic diversity and
other characteristics of ELLs. To be successful, the system must ensure
that the standards and assessment processes address academic language
as well as English language proficiency. Teacher preparation and in-
service professional development programs must build the capacity of
content and ESL teachers to differentiate instruction and assessment
for ELLs, as well as teach ELLs the academic language required to
successfully access the academic content. ELL experts must be involved
at every level of design and implementation. I have great expectations
for the ESEA reauthorization and look forward to an interconnected
system that works for English language learners.
______
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members of the HELP
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today and offer my
perspective on how the common core standards and assessments should
address and measure academic outcomes for English language learners, or
ELLs. I also will address the special challenges faced in developing
assessments which provide information that can support teaching and
learning for ELLs.
Initially, however, it is important that we clearly define and have
a shared understanding of ELLs. Also while constructing a coherent
system of standards, instruction, and assessment that can address all
students including ELLs, it is important to take into account:
the need for the Common Core Standards and new assessment
system(s) to recognize and address the linguistic needs of ELLs;
that ELLs need academic language to acquire subject matter
proficiency; and
that English language proficiency (ELP) standards and
assessments are distinct from English language arts (ELA) standards and
assessments.
U.S. schools serve over 5 million ELLs. These learners are
scattered across the United States and are highly mobile. About 10 to
12 percent of students in public schools are ELLs. While the number of
ELLs continues to increase in Northeast and Western States that
traditionally have had large numbers of ELLs, more recently, the
Southeast and Midwest have seen dramatic increases. The impact of these
demographic changes on schools makes it imperative that the needs of
the ELL population are addressed in the Blueprint and supporting
proposals guiding the reauthorization of ESEA.
ELLs are not a homogenous group and attention to their different
characteristics is essential to meaningfully instructing and assessing
them. One important example is the level of English language
proficiency, but ELLs also differ in ethnic background, socioeconomic
status, quality of prior schooling, and first or native language,
including literacy in their first language. Many ELLs are economically
and educationally disadvantaged and attend high-poverty schools. All
too often the schools ELLs attend lack the educational resources and
personnel knowledgeable about how to teach them the academic English or
academic language needed to acquire the content knowledge and skills
needed to reach high academic standards, graduate from high school, and
be college ready.
As Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) argue, ELLs must ``perform double
the work of native English speakers in the country's middle and high
schools'' (p. 1) because they are studying content area subjects
through a language in which they are not yet fully proficient. In order
to understand and apply academic concepts, students must be able to
interpret and produce complex oral and written language.
Effectively educating these students requires adjusting or
differentiating instructional approaches, content instruction, and
assessment in ways that take into consideration their differences.
However, practices for identifying who is an ELL are not systematic
across or sometimes even within States. Therefore, one of the basic
issues to address in a reauthorized ESEA is clearly defining the ELL
subgroup by requiring all schools and districts within a State to apply
comparable screening, entry, and exit criteria.
As recommended by the Working Group on ELL Policy, a reauthorized
ESEA should require States to establish stable ELL subgroup membership
for accountability purposes (see Working Group on ELL Policy
Recommendations at http://ellpolicy.com). Currently, new ELLs with
lower levels of ELP enter the subgroup, while students who attain
proficiency in English no longer belong to the subgroup. It is the only
subgroup whose composition changes in this way.
Additionally, I recommend that the new iteration of ESEA use the
term English language learner or ELL rather than the term limited
English proficient students. Just as we do not label first year physics
students limited physics students we should not call students in the
process of learning English limited-English speakers (LaCelle Peterson
& Rivera, 1994).
Now I will discuss how the common core standards and assessments
should address and measure academic outcomes for English language
learners. The new common core standards were developed to provide a
``clear and consistent framework to prepare . . . (students) for
college and the workforce'' (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). While the standards
are intended to address all students, ELL experts were not invited to
be part of the initial development process. Nonetheless, members of the
Working Group on ELL policy and others have since examined the
standards and made recommendations regarding how they should be refined
to better address the needs of ELLs. These recommendations should be
considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into revisions of the
common core standards.
With regard to the ELA standards, special attention needs to be
given to how and at what point ELLs will be expected to acquire and be
assessed in the standards. Because the new common core ELA standards
were developed with native English speaking students in mind, it is
important to consider the role and use of ELP standards and
assessments. Although ELP and ELA are related and even list the same
skills (listening, reading, and writing), presumptions about students'
background and basic competencies in English differ. Thus, it will be
important to articulate the relationship between the two sets of
standards and to clearly delineate expectations for when instruction in
ELA versus ELP is appropriate for ELLs. This specification should be
established in every State or consortium of States by a working
committee of ELL and ELA experts using data from current studies of ELA
and ELP, as appropriate and available. This committee will need to
examine a State's ELP standards and determine at what point along the
continuum of learning to speak, read, and write English ELLs at low
levels of ELP should be held accountable for ELA standards. This
clarification is exceedingly important if States, districts, and
schools are to implement and assess the ELA standards in a meaningful
way for ELLs as well as for all other students. For ELLs at low levels
of ELP, since the ELA continuum starts with the assumption that it is
addressing native speakers of English, then it is worth considering
substituting the ELP reading and writing standards and assessments as
measures of reading and writing achievement for these students.
With regard to mathematics standards, it is important to consider
whether these standards need to be addressed only in English or if they
can also be addressed in students' native languages. The underlying
competencies reflected in the common core standards are benchmarked to
international standards and, thus, are based on knowledge and skills
that transcend English language proficiency.
Implicit in the national mathematics standards, for example, is the
expectation that students can explain methods for solving problems as
well as describe, classify, and understand relationships. A crucial
factor in meeting these expectations is being able to understand and
use the academic language or academic English of different disciplines.
While a mastery of academic language is demanding for all students, it
can be especially difficult for students who already struggle with
other linguistic challenges, such as ELLs and former ELLs.
In a reauthorized ESEA, resources should also be allotted to States
to work toward the development of a broad national framework that
captures the many dimensions of academic English (Anstrom, DiCerbo,
Butler, Katz, Millet, & Rivera, 2010). Currently, the connection
between grade-level content goals and the language needed to attain
these goals is not made explicit in national or State content
standards. Few educators at either the district or school level have
the resources, time or training to perform the kind of linguistic
analysis needed to reveal the academic language that creates the most
difficulty for ELLs. To this end, The George Washington University
Center for Equity & Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE), developed a
process to identify the academic language used in assessments,
textbooks, and other instructional materials (Anstrom & DiCerbo, in
press).
Until a new assessment system is established, it is important for
States to continue to work with their existing academic assessments to
ensure validity and reliability as well as accessibility to ELLs at
different levels of ELP. While many States use accommodations as an
approach to make assessments accessible to ELLs, accommodations in the
different content areas need to be studied and refined to ensure that
they address the linguistic needs of ELLs at basic, intermediate, and
advanced levels of levels of ELP. For example, ELLs with basic ELP may
benefit more from oral forms of linguistic support and native language
support (Pennock-Roman & Rivera, 2010). More research needs to be
carried out to determine the most appropriate accommodations, including
in ELLs' native languages.
In the interim, States should continue to refine their State
assessment policies and communication of those polices to district and
school staff responsible for administering State assessments. In the
policies, there is great need to clearly distinguish the linguistic
needs of ELLs from cognitive, processing, or physical needs of students
with disabilities (Shafer Willner, Rivera, & Acosta, 2008). In
addition, States need to refine their communication of the policy to
district and school staff responsible for administering content
assessments so the criteria for administering the assessment and
determining appropriate accommodations for individual students are
consistent across a State. States should be encouraged to establish
and/or improve their systems for monitoring the progress of their ELLs
and former ELLs to understand better the relationship of their English
language and content knowledge proficiency throughout schooling.
Finally, it is important to encourage States to report academic
achievement by ELP status and to use these data to make instructional
adjustments.
Next I will address the special challenges faced in developing and
implementing assessments which provide information that can support
teaching and learning. The five design principles proposed by NGO/CCSSO
in the Common Core Standards hold great promise. It is essential,
however, for the learning needs of ELLs, students with disabilities and
other special populations to be taken into consideration while the
system is being designed, implemented, and evaluated. To address the
needs of ELLs, individuals need to be involved who are knowledgeable
about second language acquisition, academic English, second language
testing, and best practices for instructing second language learners in
subject matter content. Equally important, assessments will need to be
designed and implemented so ELLs at different levels of English
language proficiency are able to access the content of summative,
benchmark, and classroom assessments in English.
Development of an integrated learning system implies that, while
the goals remain the same, the learning needs of different groups of
students must be distinguished and teachers of academic content and
teachers of language must be prepared to instruct and assess ELLs at
different levels of English language proficiency. A successful system
will require retooling of teacher preparation and in-service
professional development programs to build the capacity of content and
ESL teachers to differentiate instruction and assessment for ELLs, as
well as to teach ELLs the academic language they need to access the
academic content.
For students in bilingual and dual language situations, it will
require teaching and assessing students in the native language as well
as in English. For these programs, it is necessary to ensure the
content standards and assessments are parallel to the new Common Core
Standards.
Every State and consortium should establish an assessment Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) that includes second language testing experts
and second language acquisition specialists. The TAC should be
responsible for reviewing and commenting on policies, recommending
research to be carried out, and providing advice on implementation and
refinement of the assessment system.
The delineation of policy at the State and consortium levels is
important and should guide practice for the new assessment system.
Policies must be developed that clearly define when ELLs are to be
included in an assessment, what accommodations are available in English
and in the native language for each content area assessed in summative,
benchmark, and classroom assessments, and what implementation
procedures are to be followed when assessing ELLs at different levels
of ELP.
Finally, as part of improving the design of assessments, it is
necessary to consider what processes the Department of Education (ED)
or other external reviewers will use to evaluate the new assessment
systems. Currently two processes are in place to assess the adequacy of
assessments, standards and assessment peer review and title I
monitoring, however the processes are not aligned. Whatever review
procedures are put in place for the new assessment systems, it is
important to ensure the alignment of these processes and that one or
more of the individuals involved in a review have knowledge of second
language acquisition, language testing, and instruction of ELLs (Shafer
Willner, Rivera, & Acosta, 2010).
In conclusion, the design of assessment and accountability systems
and their implementation must consider the linguistic diversity and
other characteristics of ELLs. To be successful, the system must ensure
that the standards and assessment processes addresses academic language
as well as English language proficiency. Teacher preparation and in-
service professional development programs must build the capacity of
content and ESL teachers to differentiate instruction and assessment
for ELLs, as well as teach ELLs the academic language required to
successfully access the academic content. ELL experts must be involved
at every level of design and implementation. States should consider the
needs of ELLs in the new standards and assessment system. Policies must
address how ELLs are defined, and address procedures for including and
accommodating ELLs in summative, benchmark, and classroom assessments.
Most importantly the new assessment system must be valid and reliable
for all students including ELLs. At the Federal level, ED must improve
the review and monitoring of the standards and assessment systems. It
is crucial that the review processes explicitly address ELLs and that
the reviewers have the necessary expertise and knowledge.
I have great expectations for the ESEA reauthorization and look
forward to an interconnected system that works for English language
learners.
References
Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera,
C. (2010). A Review of the Literature on Academic English:
Implications for K-12 English Language Learners. Arlington, VA: The
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in
Education.
Anstrom, K. & DiCerbo, P. (in press). Final Report: Linking Academic
Language to Academic Standards. Arlington, VA: The George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in
Education.
LaCelle Peterson, M. & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A
framework for equitable assessment policies for English language
learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1) 55-75.
NGA & CCSSO. (2010) Common Core Standards Initiative. http://www.core
standards.org/.
Working Group on ELL Policy. (2010). Recommendations for ESEA
Reauthorization. http://www.corestandards.org/.
Pennock-Roman, M. & Rivera, C. (2010). Mean Effects of Test
Accommodations for ELLs and Non-ELLs: A Meta-Analysis. Denver,
Colorado: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., and Acosta, B. (2010). Examination of
Peer Review and Title I Monitoring Feedback Regarding the Inclusion
and Accommodation of English Language Learners in State Content
Assessments. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center
for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. (2008). Descriptive
analysis of State 2006-2007 content area accommodations policies
for English language learners (2008). Prepared for the LEP
Partnership, U.S. Department of Education. Arlington, VA: The
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in
Education. Available: http://ells.ceee.gwu.edu.
Short, D. & Fitzsimmons, S. 2007. Double the Work: Challenges and
Solutions to Acquiring Language and Academic Literacy for
Adolescent English Language Learners. A report commissioned by the
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education. http://www.all4ed.org/files/DoubleWork.pdf.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Rivera.
Now we turn to Dr. Thurlow, National Center on Educational
Outcomes from the University of Minnesota.
Welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA THURLOW, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER
ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Ms. Thurlow. Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and
other members of the committee, thank you for asking me to
speak today. And I am going to do the best I can because I am
suffering from allergies and too much plane riding.
I work with States and districts on the inclusion of
students with disabilities in assessments, standards-based
reform, accommodations, alternate assessments, and graduation
requirements. Today, I want to share what we have learned from
research and practice that is relevant to the discussion here.
Students with disabilities who receive special education
number 6.6 million students and make up 13 percent of public
school enrollment. They are disproportionately poor, minority,
and English language learners. The vast majority of them--about
80 to 85 percent--are students without intellectual
impairments.
After decades of being excluded from State and district
assessments, their participation has now increased to about 97
percent, due in large part to the requirements of ESEA and
IDEA. Their academic performance is also increasing. In many
cases, students with disabilities have surprised their
teachers, their parents, and themselves sometimes by mastering
content that before standards-based reform was never taught to
them.
Clear, well-defined content standards are the foundation
for improved outcomes for all students. The potential benefits
of Common Core standards for students with disabilities are
great if we can avoid inadvertently developing them in a way
that makes it impossible to accurately measure all the content.
Clear, well-defined content standards also make it possible to
provide appropriate accommodations for students with
disabilities, both for instruction and assessments.
We have made tremendous strides in accessible assessments
for students with disabilities during the past decade. It is
critical that during the development process, we think of all
students, clearly define what each assessment is intended to
measure and how that content can be measured for all students.
Retrofitting assessments with accommodations and developing
a series of alternate assessments because the general
assessments do not work for all students is expensive for
schools and stigmatizing for students. We also know from title
I past practices that out-of-level testing for accountability
purposes does not work to improve achievement. It only works to
make adults feel better about poor student performance.
As a long-time special educator and assessment expert, I
believe that our greatest challenges in improving achievement
for students with disabilities are not in the area of the
assessments. The greatest challenges are in delivering high-
quality instruction in the standards-based curriculum to every
student with a disability.
Although there are some ways in which assessments can be
improved, unless we provide students with disabilities greater
access to the curriculum, making sure that they have
individualized instruction, appropriate accommodations, and
other supports that they need to succeed, achievement is going
to remain low.
With clear and specific standards, teacher capacity to
adjust teaching for individual needs can occur without losing
the content or performance expectations. These practices will
also ensure that other students who are low-performing,
predominantly students who are poor and of minority status, but
without identified disabilities, also can achieve at higher
levels.
The discussion should not be about whether students with
disabilities can learn to proficiency as defined for all
students, it must be about whether we have the will and
commitment to make it happen. We must build on the research
that has shown that where there is shared responsibility and
collaboration among staff and where students are held to high
expectations and are provided specialized instruction,
supports, and accommodations so that they meet those high
expectations, students can achieve at higher levels and be
prepared for college and careers.
It is too easy to explain away the gaps in achievement for
students with disabilities by characterizing these students as
children to be pitied, who should not be held to the same
standards as others because of their disabilities. This
characterization is inconsistent with what we know about
students with disabilities, and it flies in the face of the
purpose of special education. We should expect to see a value-
added benefit from the Federal commitment to supplementing
State and local funding for special ed services.
This benefit will be realized through the unwavering
expectation that all students with disabilities receive high-
quality and specialized instruction, have universal access to
the challenging grade-level curriculum that is the right of all
students, and participate in rigorous and inclusive assessments
of their learning.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thurlow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D.
Students with disabilities who receive special education
number 6.6 million, 13 percent of public school enrollment, and are
disproportionately poor, minority, and English-language learners, and
the vast majority--about 80-85 percent--are students without
intellectual impairments.
The trend lines show increased participation and
performance on State assessments--students with disabilities are
mastering content that, before standards-based reform, was never taught
to them.
Clear, well-defined content standards are the foundation
for improved outcomes for all students and make it possible to provide
appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities, both for
instruction and assessments.
We have made tremendous strides in accessible assessments
for students with disabilities during the past decade, focusing on the
need to think of all students from the beginning of design, clearly
define what each assessment is intended to measure, and how that
content can be measured for all students.
Retrofitting is not effective assessment design; practices
like out-of-level testing are not effective to improve achievement.
Our greatest challenges in improving achievement for
students with disabilities are NOT in the area of assessments--the
greatest challenges are in delivering high quality instruction in the
standards-based curriculum to every student with a disability.
Although there are some ways in which assessments can be
improved, unless we provide students with disabilities greater access
to the curriculum, making sure that they have individualized,
specialized instructions, appropriate accommodations, and other
supports they need to succeed, their achievement will remain low.
With clear and specific, teachable and learnable,
measureable, coherent standards, teacher capacity to adjust teaching
for individual needs can occur without losing the content or
performance expectations.
These practices will also ensure that other students who
are as low-performing as students with disabilities--predominantly
students who are poor and of minority status but without identified
disabilities--also can achieve at higher levels.
The discussion should not be about whether students with
disabilities--or other low-performing students--can learn proficiency
as defined for all students--it must be about whether we have the will
and commitment to make it happen, building on research that shows it is
possible.
The characterization of students with disabilities as
children to be pitied, who should not be held to the same standards as
others because of their disabilities, is inconsistent with what we know
about students with disabilities--and flies in the face of the purpose
of special education.
We should expect to see a value-added benefit from the
Federal commitment to supplementing State and local funding for special
education services.
______
Chairman Harkin, Senator Enzi, and other members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to speak today. I am the Director of the
National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), a research and
technical assistance organization with funding from the Office of
Special Education Programs and the Institute of Education Sciences.
NCEO provides assistance to States and districts on the inclusion of
students with disabilities in State and district assessments, and on
important related topics such as standards-based reform,
accommodations, alternate assessments, graduation requirements,
universally designed assessments and accessible testing. Because of our
focused organizational mission, we work closely with States as they
implement standards and assessments for all of their students. We know
of the challenges that States and districts face as they work to
implement the goals of standards-based reforms. NCEO supports its
technical assistance with policy research on current policies and
practices in these and other areas. NCEO also conducts other research
to move the field forward in its thinking in areas such as how to
develop universally-designed assessments that are accessible for
students with disabilities without changing the content or level of
challenge of the test, and how to most appropriately assess students
with disabilities who are also English language learners. We work with
other organizations on the critical issues of access to the general
curriculum, instruction, and other factors that must be addressed for
assessments to show the improved learning that students with
disabilities are capable of demonstrating.
I have been a member of the special education professional
community since the early 1970s, and have personally viewed the
tremendous changes in our country's approach to educating students with
disabilities. I have also viewed the stumbles we have made along the
way as we determine how to ensure that students with disabilities
progress through school and emerge ready for college or a career.
I have been asked to comment on how standards and assessments can
be improved to raise outcomes for students with disabilities. I have
also been asked to share my thoughts about the special challenges that
we face in developing assessments that provide meaningful information
about all students. As I address these topics, I want to also make two
important points that are critical to understanding the challenges and
the promise of standards and assessments for students with
disabilities.
improving standards and assessments
To address ways to improve standards and assessments so that they
are best for all students, including students with disabilities, it is
important to clarify first who students with disabilities are, and also
to realize that: (1) students with disabilities have benefited
tremendously from our country's focus on standards and assessments, and
(2) standards and assessments, by themselves, do not guarantee that
student performance will increase, or even that access to the general
curriculum and instruction will occur.
Who students with disabilities are. Students with disabilities are
not to be pitied or protected from the same high expectations we have
for other students. They should not be excluded from the assessments
that tell us how we are doing in making sure that they meet those
expectations.
Students with disabilities who receive special education as
required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act currently
make up 13 percent of public school enrollment, with percentages in
States varying from 10 percent to 19 percent of the State public school
enrollment (see Table 1). They are disproportionately poor, minority,
and English Language Learners.
Table 1. Number and Percentage of IDEA Part B Children in Highest and
Lowest Percentage States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Children Percentage
Served of Public
Under IDEA, School
Part B Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest Percentage States:
Rhode Island................................ 20,646 19.7
New Jersey.................................. 178,870 18.1
Maine....................................... 27,987 17.5
Massachusetts............................... 149,743 17.3
Indiana..................................... 112,949 17.1
Lowest Percentage States:
Utah........................................ 46,606 10.9
California.................................. 468,420 10.6
Colorado.................................... 56,336 10.4
Idaho....................................... 21,703 10.3
Texas....................................... 344,529 10.1
-------------------------
United States Total....................... 6,605,695 13.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 52 of 2009 Digest of Ed Statistics.
The vast majority--about 80-85 percent based on the latest
distribution of disability categories--are students without
intellectual impairments (see Figure 1). Rather, they are students who
with specially designed instruction, appropriate access, supports, and
accommodations, as required by IDEA, can meet the same achievement
standards as other students. We must ensure that these students
progress through school successfully to be ready for college or career.
In addition, we have learned that even students with intellectual
impairments can do more than we previously believed possible.
Figure 1. Distribution of Disability Categories in 2008-2009
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In many cases, students have surprised their teachers and parents--
and themselves--by mastering content that, before standards-based
reform, was never taught to them.
Benefits of standards and assessments for students with
disabilities. There is no question that students with disabilities have
benefited in many ways from our country's focus on standards and
assessments. After decades of being excluded from State and district
assessment systems, their participation in State assessments has
increased from 10 percent or fewer of most States' students with
disabilities participating in the early 1990s, to an average of 99
percent at the elementary level, 98 percent at the middle school level,
and 95 percent at the high school level in 2007-2008 (Altman, Thurlow,
& Vang, 2010). These increases are due in large part to participation
requirements in ESEA and IDEA.
We also are seeing evidence of improvements in the academic
performance of students with disabilities. Some of this evidence comes
from trends in the performance of students with disabilities on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (see Figure 2 for 2009
grade 8 reading results).
Figure 2. NAEP Grade 8 Average Scale Scores of Students with
Disabilities
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Although there are large gaps in performance between students with
disabilities and their peers without disabilities, we have built better
understanding about students with disabilities, their opportunities to
learn, and what can be expected of them. We have also learned much
about what needs to change in their instruction, access to the
curriculum, and in assessments in order to first see their achievement
increase dramatically, and then to capture that achievement on
sensitive assessments.
Standards and assessments do not guarantee improved results or
increased access and instruction. Standards and assessment are part of
a theory of action that has been driving educational reform in the
United States for the past decade or more. It assumes that assessments
and accountability promote interventions and improvements in the
quality of instruction, which in turn will produce higher performance,
which is then rewarded through the accountability system.
This theory of action has been slow to work for several reasons.
First and most basic is that current instructional practices,
especially for students with disabilities, are not uniformly effective
in ensuring success for the students most in need. That is especially
true for students with disabilities. Standards and assessments can be
improved, but that is no guarantee that the outcomes of students with
disabilities will be improved. To raise the outcomes of students with
disabilities, we as a nation will need to step up for real change. We
must hold our public schools accountable for the learning of students
with disabilities, and expect that they commit to practices that we
know work. And, given the substantial investment the Federal Government
makes annually in support of special education, there need to be better
results. We know it is possible because we are seeing success for all
students in places with a strong commitment to the learning of all
children--all including all students with disabilities. Studies of some
of these places have identified what it takes to realize this success:
In 2004, the Donahue Institute identified 11 practices
that existed in such schools, including such factors as: (a) a
pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with the State standards,
(b) effective systems to support curriculum alignment, (c) emphasis on
inclusion and access to the curriculum, (d) culture and practices that
support high standards and student achievement, (e) well-disciplined
academic and social environment, (f) use of assessment data to inform
decisionmaking, (g) unified practice supported by targeted professional
development, (h) access to resources to support key initiatives, (i)
effective staff recruitment, retention, and deployment, (j) flexible
leaders and staff that work effectively in a dynamic environment, and
(k) effective leadership that is essential to success.
The National Center for Learning Disabilities (2008)
examined successful schools and districts across the Nation,
identifying two schools and three school districts where the success of
students with disabilities was improved. Though different in location
and student demographics, these schools and districts all (a) included
students with disabilities in general education classrooms, (b) used
data to adjust instruction to each student's needs, (c) changed the
ways that general education and special education teachers work
together, and (d) restructured administrative organizations and
procedures.
In a recent study of several Ohio school districts where
assessment scores showed strong increases over 4 years, Silverman,
Hazelwood, and Cronin (2009) found that successful districts shared
seven key characteristics: (a) focus on teaching and learning as driver
of all decisions, (b) intentional culture shift away from a separate
special education model to shared responsibility for all students,
eliminating a culture of isolation, (c) collaboration through
structures and processes to talk about data and inform instruction, (d)
leadership that starts at the district level and uses data to address
issues, with monitoring of instructional practice, but shared
leadership with principals, building staff, and teacher leaders, (e)
instructional practice that ensures access to general curriculum/grade-
level content using research-based practices, (f) assessment that
includes use of common formative assessments, and (g) curriculum that
is aligned, with use of power standards, pacing guides, curriculum
calendars, and a relationship to formative assessment.
These three studies, which have looked specifically at what works
for students with disabilities, all recognize the importance of
standards and assessments. But, they are also about so much more--about
the student's access to the curriculum, about a systemwide commitment
to all students, and about leadership, collaboration, and shared
beliefs among the educators who work with all students, including
students with disabilities. Although we can improve standards and
assessments, doing so is not a guarantee of raised outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Ways to continue to improve standards and assessments. Content
standards are the foundation for improved outcomes for all students,
including students with disabilities. These standards should identify
what students should know and be able to do. Assessments are the means
to determine where students are in their knowledge and skills in
relation to the standards. A focus on improving standards and
assessments should begin by addressing accessibility and universal
design. By accessibility, I mean being easy to approach or enter,
regardless of barriers that a student might have. Thus, accessible
standards are ones that do not have inherent barriers to their
attainment, such as a standard that requires a student who is deaf to
listen. When I use the term universal design, I refer to a set of
principles and procedures that ensure that assessments are appropriate
for the widest range of students; universal design techniques can be
applied from the beginning of test development to the point when
students engage in assessments. The goal of universally designed
assessments is to provide more valid inferences about the achievement
levels of all students, including students with disabilities.
Improving Standards. Our Nation has recognized the challenges of
each State having its own content and achievement standards for
students. Those challenges apply to students with disabilities just as
they do to students without disabilities. The potential benefits of
common core standards for students with disabilities are great. With
clear, well-defined content standards, it is possible to better
identify appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities,
both for instruction and for assessments. And, if we think about all
students from the beginning of the development of the common core
standards, we can ensure that we do not inadvertently state our
standards in a way that makes it impossible to accurately measure their
knowledge and skills without instead reflecting their disability. By
attending to these concerns from the beginning, we can ensure that
rigorous content standards and performance expectations apply to all
students, including those with disabilities.
Research evidence on teacher use of accommodations, and
accommodations decisionmaking by IEP teams, shows that teachers often
have foundational misunderstandings of what the content and achievement
standards mean. As a result, strategies to adjust instruction through
accommodations often mean that students are denied access to the
content; they are either over-accommodated or receive different content
than intended by the standards. With clear and specific, teachable and
learnable, measureable, coherent standards, teacher capacity to adjust
teaching for individual needs can occur without losing the content or
performance expectations. Common core standards that are clearer,
fewer, and more rigorous should result in increased clarity for all,
assuming that high quality professional development, training, and
support continue for all teachers with all students as the standards
are implemented.
Reading, writing, speaking, and listening standards--given the
nature of the standards themselves--often require accommodations for
students with disabilities. For example, in the case of students who
are deaf, a standard that calls for ``listening'' should be interpreted
to include reading sign language. In a similar vein, ``speaking'' for
some students with speech impairments, for example, should include
``communication'' or ``self-expression.'' Students who are blind or
have low vision should be able to read via braille, screen reader
technology, or other assistive technology to demonstrate their
comprehension skills. ``Writing'' should not preclude the use of a
scribe, computer, or speech-to-text technology for students with
disabilities that interfere with putting pen to paper, for example.
Assessments. We have made tremendous strides in making assessments
more accessible for students with disabilities during the past decade.
States and test developers have, in general, started the development of
their assessments with the recognition that students with disabilities
are general education students first. The implication of this is that
assessments are better designed from the beginning with all students in
mind, and should not preclude the participation of most students with
disabilities. It is critical that during the development process we
think of all students, clearly define what each assessment is intended
to measure, and how that content can be measured for all students.
Retrofitting assessments with accommodations and developing a series of
alternate assessments because the general assessments do not work for
all students is expensive for schools and stigmatizing for students.
The research base for developing accountability assessments that
are more appropriate for all students has dramatically increased in the
past several years. Based on this research, NCEO developed five
principles for assessments used for accountability (Thurlow ET al.,
2008):
All students are included in assessments in ways that hold
schools accountable for their learning.
Assessments allow all students to show their knowledge and
skills on the same challenging content.
High quality decisionmaking determines how students
participate.
Public reporting includes the assessment results of all
students.
Accountability determinations are affected in the same way
by all students.
Continuous improvement, monitoring, and training ensure
the quality of the overall system.
Each of these is supported by specific characteristics of
assessment systems that are appropriate for all students, including
students with disabilities. All together, they provide an important
framework for any future assessment system.
These principles reinforce what we have learned--first, thinking
about students when assessments are first designed, developed, and
implemented; second, defining allowable accommodations as part of the
development process; and third, ensuring that the assessment system
include all students, without exception. This way, developers have
focused on ensuring that tests really measure what they are intended to
measure--not extraneous factors, such as whether the students can
figure out what the test developer means by a question or whether a
picture has important clues about the answer to a question (Dolan ET
al., 2009; Thurlow ET al., 2008; Thurlow ET al., 2009). Identifying
ways to improve assessments for students with disabilities has, in
fact, resulted in improving assessments for all students.
What these principles do not do is indicate the specific nature of
the assessment. Whatever the assessment approach--computer-based
assessments, through course assessments, or paper and pencil end of
course assessments--the critical point is to think about the whole
population of students, including students with disabilities. Taking
computer-based assessments as an example--these assessments show
promise for increasing the accessibility of assessments. They also make
it easier to fall back into some pitfalls that have been demonstrated
to create problems for the assessment of students with disabilities. On
the positive side, computer-based assessments can be developed in a way
that embeds what are called ``accommodations'' when the test is paper-
based, such as the following described by Russell (2008):
Users navigate and interact with the functional elements
of the test delivery system using a standard mouse, keyboard, touch
screen, intellikeys, switch mechanism, sip-and-puff device, eagle-eyes,
and other assistive communication devices.
Text can be read aloud using a human voice or a
synthesized voice, or can be signed.
All graphics, drawings, tables, functions, formulas, and
other non-text-based elements of an item can be provided through spoken
descriptions.
An auditory calming tool can be provided that allows all students
to select from among a list of pre-approved sound files, and play
softly in the background as the user works on the test. A computer-
based system could record each use of an incorporated feature or
accommodation to document use for individual items as well as overall.
There are tremendous possibilities for dramatically increasing the
accessibility of assessments in a computer-based assessment system
based on grade-level content standards. These assessments also have the
potential to aid teachers as they determine how to move students to
grade-level achievement.
Computer-based systems also make it easier to fall back into some
pitfalls that have been demonstrated to create problems for the
assessment of students with disabilities. We must avoid pitfalls of the
past in designing computer-based systems. They should be developed to
be as transparent as possible about the content on which students are
assessed and the ways in which the content is assessed. They should not
revert to normative assessments, which compare students only to each
other rather than to content standards, even in the name of being able
to measure growth. Title I evaluation systems prior to 1994 were based
on these types of approaches, and demonstrated dramatically that
schools can show that students make ``progress,'' but the progress is
meaningless if it is not tied to the intended content and achievement
targets. These practices resulted in the failure of the system in
identifying where schools were succeeding and where they were not.
Students remained far behind their peers--and even increased the
achievement gaps--in schools deemed successful based on flawed testing
assumptions. Computer-based systems should not revert to an out-of-
level testing approach. To avoid the mistakes of the past, any adaptive
computer-based assessments must be on grade-level. Even when
constrained to grade-level, adaptive testing practices must be
transparent enough to detect when a student is inaccurately measured
because of splinter skills common for some students with disabilities,
for example, with poor basic skills in areas like computation and
decoding, but with good higher level skills, such as problem solving,
built with appropriate accommodations to address the barriers of poor
basic skills.
The research base has dramatically increased for new forms of
assessments, like alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards (AA-AAS), developed to measure the academic achievement of a
very small number of students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities. NCEO, in collaboration with the National Alternate
Assessment Center (NAAC) has conducted an extensive literature review
and has identified 10 common misperceptions about AA-AAS, as well as
research-based recommendations to ensure common understanding and high
quality assessments (Quenemoen, Kearns, Quenemoen, Flowers, & Kleinert,
2010). A summary of the research-based recommendations is included in
Appendix A.
challenges in promoting improved achievement for students
with disabilities
Our greatest challenges in improving achievement for students with
disabilities are NOT in the area of assessments. Including all students
in assessment and accountability systems as well as requiring reporting
of assessment results broken out by student groups that historically
underperform has been critical in helping us understand our great
challenges. These greatest challenges are in delivering high quality
instruction in the standards-based curriculum to every student with a
disability. Although there are some ways in which assessments can be
improved, the real work that needs to be done is in providing students
with disabilities greater access to the curriculum, making sure that
they have the individualized instruction required by IDEA as well as
appropriate accommodations and other supports they need to succeed.
States that have done this have seen the improved results.
We know how to educate all children, including those with
disabilities, if we have the will to do so. The discussion should not
be about whether students with disabilities can learn to proficiency--
and thus, it should not be about whether they should be included in the
assessment and accountability measures we have for all students--it
must be about whether we have the will and commitment to make it
happen. We must build on the research that has shown that where there
is shared responsibility and collaboration among staff, and where
students are held to high expectations and are provided specialized
instruction, supports and accommodations so that they can meet those
high expectations, students score higher on assessments.
Still, there are some risks as we move forward to develop
assessments based on common core standards. It is too easy to explain
away the gaps in achievement for students with disabilities by
characterizing these students as poor little children who should not be
held to the same standards as others because of their disabling
condition. This characterization is inconsistent with what we know
about students with disabilities--and flies in the face of the purpose
of special education. We should expect to see a value-added benefit
from the Federal commitment to supplementing State and local funding
for special education services. This benefit will be realized through
the unwavering expectation that all students with disabilities receive
high quality and specialized instruction, have universal access to the
challenging grade-level curriculum that is the right of all students,
and participate in rigorous and inclusive assessments of their
learning.
Thank you.
References
Altman, J., Thurlow, M., & Vang, M. (2010). Annual performance
report: 2007-2008 State assessment data. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Dolan, R.P., Burling, K.S., Harms, M., Beck, R., Hanna, E., Jude,
J., Murray, E.A., Rose, D.H., & Way, W. (2009). Universal design for
computer-based testing guidelines. Iowa City, IA: Pearson.
Donahue Institute (2004), A study of MCAS achievement and promising
practices in urban special education. Hadley, MA: University of
Massachusetts Donahue Institute.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2008). Challenging
change: How schools and districts are improving the performance of
special education students. New York: Author.
Quenemoen, R., Kearns, J., Quenemoen, M., Flowers, C., & Kleinert,
H. (2010). Common misperceptions and research-based recommendations for
alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
(Synthesis Report 73). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Russell, M. (2008). Universal design of computer-based tests: RFP
language. Unpublished document, Boston College.
Silverman, S.K., Hazelwood, C., & Cronin, P. (2009). Universal
education: Principles and practices for advancing achievement of
students with disabilities. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.
Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., Lazarus, S.S., Moen, R.E.,
Johnstone, C.J., Liu, K.K., Christensen, L.L., Albus, D.A., & Altman,
J. (2008). A principled approach to accountability assessments for
students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 70). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Laitusis, C.C., Dillon, D.R., Cook, L.L., Moen,
R.E., Abedi, J., & O'Brien, D.G. (2009). Accessibility principles for
reading assessments. Minneapolis, MN: National Accessible Reading
Assessment Projects.
______
Appendix A: Rethinking Assumptions about Alternate Assessment
Based on Alternate Achievement Standards
To facilitate the process of rethinking assumptions about alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), common
misperceptions are identified first, followed by the assumptions
underlying them and a research response to those assumptions. A
comprehensive summary of the literature underlying the research
responses is provided in Common Misperceptions and Research-based
Recommendations for Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement
Standards (NCEO Synthesis Report 73 by Quenemoen, Kearns, Quenemoen,
Flowers, & Kleinert).
Common misperception No. 1.--Many students who take the AA-AAS
function more like infants or toddlers than their actual age, so it
makes no sense for schools to be held accountable for their academic
performance.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: Some people assume
that students who take the AA-AAS have such severe disabilities that
they are unable to learn academic content. Sometimes, this
misperception is rooted in the assumption that all students must
progress through typical infant and preschool skill development before
any other academic instruction can occur.
Research Response: First, learner characteristics data
from many States show us that MOST students who participate in AA-AAS
have basic literacy and numeracy skills. Second, we have understood for
many decades that waiting until these students are ``ready'' by
mastering all earlier skills means they ``never'' will be given access
to the skills and knowledge we now know they can learn. In the 1980s,
educators realized that students with significant disabilities could
learn functional skills to prepare for independent adult life, even
before mastering all lower skills. In recent years, research suggests
that these students can often also learn age-appropriate academic
skills and knowledge even when they have not mastered all earlier
academic content.
Research-based Recommendation: Build accountability systems to
ensure that all students who are eligible for the AA-AAS have access to
and learn academic content expected for their same-age typical peers,
to an appropriate but challenging alternate achievement standard.
Common Misperception No. 2.--Many students who participate in AA-
AAS have life-threatening medical conditions or are not able to
communicate.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that AA-AAS students are a small homogeneous group of students
with multiple problems that go well beyond what schools can actually
handle; these students cannot speak, hear, or communicate in any way.
Research Response: Students who participate in AA-AAS are
generally less than 1 percent of the total student population or about
9 percent of all students with disabilities. Most of the students who
take the AA-AAS (90 percent) have consistent communication skills. Only
about 10 percent of AA-AAS students communicate on a pre-symbolic level
(without intentional use of language, pictures, objects, or signs).
These students can communicate, but need to be given opportunities to
learn effective strategies, including the use of assistive devices.
Research-based Recommendation: For the small group of students who
initially demonstrate a lack of symbolic communication (about 10
percent of students who take the AA-AAS), educators should persistently
and systematically seek multiple and varied communication strategies
including assistive technology to permit these students to learn and
then to show what they know on an AA-AAS.
Common Misperception No. 3: Students in the AA-AAS can learn only
rote academic skills, so AA-AAS should reflect only these skills.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that the curriculum for students with severe disabilities often
has been based on math skills of time and money and reading skills
limited to sight words because that is all these students can learn.
Research Response: It is true that research through the
1990s reflects a very narrow curriculum. Researchers now are finding
strong evidence of academic skills and knowledge development among
these students, including abstract concepts and transfer of learning,
for students who participate in AA-AAS. We are only beginning to learn
what these students are capable of, once given the opportunity to learn
and access to appropriate accommodations such as assistive technology.
In our work with States, we have encountered many teachers who have
been ``surprised and amazed'' at what their students are able to learn
when given the chance.
Research-based Recommendation: Build AA-AAS approaches based on a
model of academic content development that allows these students to
demonstrate a range of grade-level content that their peers are also
learning and demonstrating.
Common Misperception No. 4--The AA-AAS has eliminated the teaching
of important functional skills.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that the addition of academics to the curriculum for students
with severe disabilities means that there is limited time for teaching
functional skills like self-care, community participation, and safety.
There is not enough time in the day to do both.
Research Response: AA-AAS are designed to ensure students
with significant cognitive disabilities are taught academic content
like their peers, but a student's IEP will often still include
important functional skill goals. Many teachers have found that blended
instruction in academic and functional skills yields better results for
both. The ``line'' between academics and functional instruction begins
to blur as teachers and parents discover how truly useful and
satisfying increased literacy and numeracy skills are for these
students, for quality of life and enjoyment, for integration into the
community, school, or adult life, and for future employment.
Research-based Recommendation: Provide training and support to
teachers so that they can effectively merge academic and functional
instructions where appropriate and so that they understand the vital
importance of academic skills and knowledge to full participation in
family, school, and community life.
Common Misperception No. 5--AA-AAS must cover all of the same
content that is on the general assessment for typical peers.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that the grade-level curriculum is very challenging and has far
too much information for these students to cover in a year, let alone
learn at all, but Federal law requires the same content on all tests.
Research Response: Federal regulations permit States to
define the appropriate depth, breadth, and complexity of content
coverage for the AA-AAS. Researchers are working on ways that students
can access grade-level content at various ``entry points.'' States must
show that these content priorities truly ``raise the bar'' of
historically low expectations, and are clearly linked to the content
that typical students in the same grade should know and be able to do.
Since this is a shift for teachers who do not have experience with this
content, training and support to teachers is an essential component of
high quality alternate assessments.
Research-based Recommendation: Provide training to teachers, and to
other key assessment system stakeholders and advisors, on what research
suggests these students are able to know and do when given the
opportunity.
Common Misperception No. 6--Most AA-AAS are entirely individualized
and differ for each student.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that teachers make so much adaptation and adjustment to the
assessment for each student that there is no way you can compare
results from one school to another.
Research Response: A good AA-AAS allows a defined amount
of flexibility in administration of the items and tasks because
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities vary in how
they take in and respond to information and requests. Even so, AA-AAS
must also adhere to basic standards of technical quality so that the
scores can be compared for accountability purposes. An AA-AAS should
incorporate training, oversight, and structures to balance flexibility
with standardization of procedures and ongoing monitoring to ensure the
assessments are administered, scored, and reported as intended.
Research-based Recommendation: All AA-AAS scores should indicate
whether the student is proficient in an academic domain through
procedures that allow flexibility but control for possible sources of
error.
Common Misperception No. 7--An AA-AAS measures teacher performance
in compiling attractive portfolios or examples rather than measuring
student academic performance.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that teachers who are able to put together pretty portfolios or
examples, or who can choose student examples that make them look good,
will score higher than teachers who may teach well but who do not spend
time creating pretty portfolios or examples of what their students do.
Research Response: Given what we understand about student
characteristics, most AA-AAS formats require test administrators
familiar to the student. That means that in most cases, teachers
interact with the student to capture accurate evidence of what the
student knows and can do. A good AA-AAS is designed to control for
administrative responses that are decorative, and to focus on
independent student performance. Research has shown that teachers who
are well-trained in instruction and assessment administration often
have students with higher AA-AAS scores, but spending a lot of time
making the portfolio ``look good'' has little impact on scores.
Research-based Recommendation: Train teachers on systematic data
gathering procedures, provide oversight, coaching, and monitoring to
ensure they implement the procedures as intended, and design scoring
processes to exclude evidence that reflects teacher behaviors instead
of independent student performance.
Common Misperception No. 8--It would make more sense if teachers
simply reported on their students' progress meeting IEP goals rather
than requiring an AA-AAS.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
have IEPs that define what they should be learning. Gathering data that
already are used for the IEP is the best measure of the students'
achievement.
Research Response: A good IEP will identify the services,
supports, and specialized instruction needed so that the student can
learn both academic and functional skills and knowledge. Data gathered
on the specific goals and objectives in the IEP are important for
individual accountability among IEP team members for these short- and
long-term goals and objectives, in all areas where the student has
them. Some of these goals and objectives will specify the services and
supports the student needs to access the general curriculum, but
student progress based on the IEP does not provide accountability for
student achievement of proficiency in the general curriculum. In
contrast, AA-AAS are designed to provide data for system accountability
to ensure that all students are provided access to and are achieving to
proficiency in the general curriculum.
Research-based Recommendation: Design AA-AAS so that there are
comparable data on the effectiveness of schools in providing access to
the general curriculum to students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
Common Misperception No. 9--Some AA-AAS formats (i.e., portfolio,
checklist, performance assessment) are better than others.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that one method is better than another, with ``better'' meaning
more technically adequate; the specific method that is considered
better or worse often is based on good or bad experiences in the past.
Research Response: Research on the technical quality of
AA-AAS has shown that the format of the test is a poor predictor of
technical quality. What a ``portfolio'' or ``checklist'' or
``performance assessment'' or what any other type of format name is can
vary enormously, and a number of States now use hybrid models that
combine elements of these approaches. Any of these types of formats can
be of poor or high quality. A good AA-AAS should sensitively and
accurately measure what students know and can do once they have been
given appropriate access to interesting, age-appropriate academic
content.
Research-based Recommendation: Select the format of the AA-AAS
based on beliefs about academic teaching and learning for AA-AAS
students.
Common Misperception No. 10--No AA-AAS can be a technically
adequate measure of student achievement for accountability purposes.
Assumptions Underlying Misperception: People sometimes
assume that the AA-AAS breaks all the rules of good design of large-
scale assessments as judged by high quality psychometric evidence that
have been used by measurement experts for a century.
Research Response: The challenges of designing AA-AAS are
very new; prior to the 1990s, no large-scale assessment program
included students with significant cognitive disabilities, and very few
measurement experts had experience designing assessment for these
students. Fortunately, there has been a great deal of work done since
the 1990s on issues that have emerged in developing psychometrically
sound AA-AAS. AA-AAS can be designed to produce valid and reliable
information about student outcomes.
Research-based Recommendation: State assessment offices should
address three components of the assessment design as they develop and
implement the AA-AAS: (a) description of the student population and a
theory of learning for these students, (b) structure of the
observations from the assessment, and (c) interpretation of the
results. The technical defense of an AA-AAS starts and ends with these
three components.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Thurlow.
Thank you all for your testimonies, and we will start a
round of 5-minute questions here.
Dr. Thurlow, you know probably of my involvement with the
whole disability movement for many, many years. This is one
area that I intend to focus on a lot in the reauthorization of
ESEA. What steps can we take to ensure that the assessments we
develop are appropriate for all students, including students
with disabilities, and provide us with a valid and valuable
information on their achievement and growth?
What can we learn from I think it was what Dr. Phillips
talked about? In other words, a technology-based, computer-
based system that gives perhaps a more rapid and more thorough
information to teachers on how to assess their students, and
especially students with disabilities.
A subset of my question might be you are familiar with the
1 percent, 2 percent problem? The exemptions for the 1 percent.
Now they want to go to 2 percent. If you could address yourself
to that briefly, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Thurlow. All right. Let me start with steps to take,
and I think we have been learning this across time as we have
worked with State assessments, that we need to take that
universal design approach, where we start from the very
beginning, thinking about all students. That means when we are
talking about our standards that we be clear about exactly what
they mean so that we know what accommodations can be provided
that won't get in the way of what we are trying to measure.
We need to think about those accommodations carefully so
that we are getting valid measures. We need to continue to work
in relation to that on the decisionmaking process so that
students are not over accommodated, for example, which in many
cases ends up interfering with their performance.
Well, let me jump to the notion of technology-based. In
fact, I would broaden that to the variety of discussions we are
having about innovative assessments. Most of them are going to
be wonderful for children with disabilities. It is not the
particular approach we take. It is how we ensure that we have
thought about all students as we take a particular approach.
Talking about technology-based assessments, I think it has
tremendous potential in being able to incorporate what we now
call accommodations. They don't have to be separate. It can be
part of the assessment itself. That is a big advantage, and all
the others, getting scores quickly, etc, are advantages.
One caution I would have is that we need to remain on grade
level. We need to continue the same expectations for students
with disabilities as we have for other students. Dr. Phillips
talked about every student getting the same content standards.
We need to make sure that that happens for students with
disabilities as well, that we don't somehow send them down a
path where they don't get to all of the standards that
everybody else gets to.
The Chairman. One percent. We had the 1 percent exemption,
and now people are pushing for 2 percent.
Ms. Thurlow. OK, I would never call----
The Chairman. Of course, we know that 1 percent translates
into 10 percent.
Ms. Thurlow. Ten percent of students with disabilities, 1
percent of the total population. That is like a general
estimate.
The Chairman. That is right.
Ms. Thurlow. The alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards, which we typically refer to as the ``1
percent assessment,'' or often refer to that, I think has been
a tremendous benefit for the field. We have figured out who the
students are, pretty much, who belong in that assessment, those
students with significant cognitive disabilities, intellectual
involvement. We have made tremendous strides in figuring out
what the content standards are, how they apply to those
students, and we are working and evolving in our knowledge of
how best to assess those students.
Remember, these students were never in assessments before.
We have made tremendous improvement there. I believe the 1
percent is pretty good, pretty accurate percentage for students
to be involved in the alternate, based on the alternative
achievement standards.
The Chairman. What about 2 percent?
Ms. Thurlow. I think 2 percent, this is the alternative
assessment-based, a modified achievement standard, a relatively
new assessment. We are really looking at who those kids are.
There have been challenges in identifying what makes students
with disabilities different from other low-performing students.
So we see the same characteristics.
They are generally poor students, low-performing----
The Chairman. While I found that there was maybe some
acceptance among the disability community for the 1 percent, I
find almost no acceptance for the 2 percent. And it just goes
too far.
Ms. Thurlow. It has become controversial, holding different
standards for another 2 percent.
The Chairman. I think we have to look at that very
carefully.
Ms. Thurlow. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, my time has run out. I have other
questions for Dr. Phillips, too, on assessments. But, I will do
that in the next round.
Senator Enzi.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the testimony of all these witnesses, and I
have a lot of questions, too.
I will begin with Dr. Paine. How can the Federal Government
support the work of the States in the further development and
adoption of the Common Core standards without nationalizing or
federalizing the standards?
Mr. Paine. Great question. I certainly appreciate the
question.
I think the revised ESEA should reward State leadership and
innovation not just with funding for assessments, and
professional development and other inputs, but also by perhaps
codifying a new State-Federal partnership that does, in fact,
promote innovation in alignment of practice to this set of
Common Core standards. By that, I mean allowing States some
degree of flexibility in establishing an accountability system
that works for that particular State.
I think also that as we look at the innovation money that
is available right now, the $350 million Race to the Top
innovation money that is available, there have been two
assessment consortia, if you will, that CCSSO is going to work
with. One is a fairly traditional-based summative assessment
approach with some degree of balance, and the other really
includes multiple measures of looking at how we assess student
progress.
And so, I think that a Federal role could be recognizing
that if we really truly are interested in 21st century types of
assessments that really will link kids to the workforce, to the
private sector--our own John Chambers from Cisco hails from
Charleston, WV. And so, as we engage in conversations with
John, he clearly says that it is about kids knowing content at
a high level and a proficient level, but it is also about kids
understanding how to apply that content.
You simply don't measure that kind of performance result
necessarily with a summative standardized type of test. Looking
at adaptive tests and innovative tests, at ways to assess
student progress in many innovative, different ways so that you
are measuring the full scope of these rich, robust common State
standards.
That is certainly a role that the Federal Government could
play and Congress could play in the reauthorization in
encouraging those kinds of innovative assessment systems with
strong accountability measures.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
Dr. Schmeiser, given the work that ACT has done with
WorkKeys, could you explain how that would relate to the issue
of career-ready standards? How would that be assessed?
Ms. Schmeiser. Yes, Senator.
Matter of fact, the WorkKeys program, which is a workforce
development program offered by ACT, has been predicated on a
database of over 17,000 jobs in the United States that have
been profiled. That data fed right into the Common Core
development process. As I mentioned, that was very much an
evidentiary, research-based process.
We used information about what is needed for high school
graduates. What do they need to know and be able to do when
they leave high school in order to be able to go into workforce
training programs and be ready to learn job-specific skills?
That information and data on those foundational skills fed
into that evidentiary base in being able to define the Common
Core. When we talk about college and career ready, the career-
ready evidence from WorkKeys was used as part of that process.
It has been front and center in the evidence that was used to
identify the Common Core, and WorkKeys will, in fact, be
aligned with the Common Core as well.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
Dr. Phillips, it is clear that States need to update their
State-wide assessments to align with these new State-developed
standards. Will State-wide summative assessments provide
accurate assessment of the student knowledge of these
standards, or will additional assessments be needed?
Mr. Phillips. Well, I think the plan with the consortia of
States and the common standards, assuming that those are
adopted, that would go a long way toward solving the problem--
instead of going in 50 different directions, they might go in
2.
Assuming that they also are able to set high
internationally benchmarked performance standards on, let us
say, both consortia or however many there might be, then that
should go a long way toward solving the problem that I
discussed.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
I can see that my time is about up. So I will save some for
the next round.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
As Senators know, we sent around to your offices that, with
the concurrence of Senator Enzi, we have adopted a new
procedure here in this committee that the Chair will recognize
Senators in the order of their appearance at the committee
dais. I think that is just a more fair and just way of doing
things.
The order I have would be Senator Murray, Senator
Alexander, Senator Franken, Senator Isakson, and then Senator
Bennet, Senator Hagan, Senator Merkley, and Senator Casey thus
far.
With that, I would then now recognize Senator Murray.
Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to you and Senator Enzi for holding this really
important hearing in this series, and I really appreciate all
of the witnesses today.
I am very interested in making sure all of our students
succeed. I think we all are. Dr. Schmeiser, you talked a little
bit about making sure that a student is prepared for a college
or a career. And I am interested, as we see the dropout rate so
high today and a lot of our students not succeeding, if you can
talk a little bit--any of you--about how we can prepare
students for both post-secondary education and a career.
What are differences, if there are any, in the skills that
a student needs to be successful in a post-secondary education
program or in a workplace, and what is it like, and how do we
write an assessment that makes sure that all kids fall into a
category of success no matter where they intend to go? I will
open it up to anybody who would like to respond.
Ms. Schmeiser. Thank you, Senator Murray.
I would like to say that when the Common Core State
Standards Initiative got underway, the definition that they
arrived at for college and career readiness assumed that
students, all students could be educated to a common standard,
so that when they leave high school, they are ready to go into
some form of post-secondary, whether it is 2-year, 4-year,
trade, technical school, or go into workforce training programs
for the kinds of jobs that I described in my testimony.
The purpose of the standards is to set a common expectation
for all students when they leave high school so they are ready
to go ahead and go into post-secondary without needing
remediation or go on to workforce training programs and learn
the job-specific skills that they will need in their career, as
well as some of the nonacademic behavior, the good job
behaviors that go along with that.
Senator Murray. I hear what you are saying is that we can
do it, but I am asking you what is that? What is it that we are
doing that says that we have an assessment that reaches both?
Ms. Schmeiser. That the assessment reaches both?
Senator Murray. What do we need to do in our high schools
different today than we have been doing that makes sure our
students reach both of those potentials?
Ms. Schmeiser. I think what we need to do, it goes back to
needing an aligned system that not only talks about Common Core
standards, but also has aligned professional development for
teachers so they understand what the standards are and what
they mean. They can teach those standards in many different
ways.
The idea is not that one-size-fits-all in the instructional
process, but those standards can be contextualized in career
formats. They can be also introduced in more academic formats.
The point is, the system has to be aligned both in terms of
outcome, instruction, assessment, and the data systems coming
back so they can identify when students are falling behind,
whether it is in a career contextualized course or an academic
course.
Bottom line, all kids are educated to the same standards.
Senator Murray. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Dr. Rivera.
Ms. Rivera. I would just like to say that if we are
considering the role or what should happen for English language
learners and other students, different populations, it is very
important that teachers know how to translate those standards
and that they are able to address the individual differences of
those subgroups of students.
For English language learners, I really believe, and I
believe for other students as well, not just English language
learners, that this whole idea of academic language is
critical. And that teachers need to understand what--to dissect
the standards and actually understand the language of the
content and be able to teach it explicitly to the students, and
this will work for English language learners. It will work for
many different subgroups of students.
In other words, that language includes--and I know it may
sound like we have--it is the English language. But, yes, we
have to teach students how to understand the phrases, the
language of academics, the language of the classroom, as well
as the specific language of the content. In biology or
wherever.
I will just give you an example. We have been working with
California and with New York. In New York, we are using the
biology, we are working with them to help identify the language
of biology and then to teach teachers how to explicitly teach
that language so that those students can then be successful in
that content area. This is the kind of work that needs to be
done for all students really.
Senator Murray. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up, but I do want to be
able to submit questions. I assume we can do that for the
record.
The Chairman. We will leave the record open for questions.
No doubt about that.
Senator Alexander.
Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for an
excellent hearing and excellent witnesses.
If you will permit me a little historical context? I went
back and found an article from 1991, entitled ``What We Were
Doing When We Were Interrupted.'' The ``we'' was we in the
George Bush I Education Department. ``Interrupted'' meant the
election in 1992. What it reminded me was that of the national
goals that Senator Harkin mentioned that in 1987, the Governor
and the President setting national goals, and then President
Bush's America 2000 strategy to mobilize the country to meet
those goals.
These initiatives included, No. 1, a new set of national
standards in core curriculum subjects, including science,
history, English, geography, art, civics, and foreign
languages. Math was already done. No. 2, a voluntary national
examination system geared to those new standards.
Then when we left, there were, according to this, seven
task forces created to develop new national academic standards
are funded and scheduled to complete their work by 1994, 1995.
Some of us were discussing earlier there was a Goals 2000 panel
that was going to push that forward.
Now, I compliment the work that the States have done so
far, and I am watching it cautiously. English and math are the
easy parts of a very hard thing to do. I remember the history
standards in the 1990s. They completely blew up, and I want to
see how you do this with U.S. history when the time comes.
I guess my first question, and I will ask you, Dr.
Schmeiser, just give, if you can, a fairly short answer.
College and career ready, do you mean college or career ready?
Do you mean to say every student should go to college?
Ms. Schmeiser. No. I think the point was whether a student
goes on to college after high school or into a workforce
training program, they will be educated to the same standards,
not different standards.
Senator Alexander. Well, I mean, how realistic is--how many
today go to college of our high school graduates? What percent
do--half, 60 percent, 40 percent?
Ms. Schmeiser. Well, I think there are estimates that up to
three-quarters of our Nation's high school graduates go into
some form of post-secondary education within 2 years of leaving
high school.
Senator Alexander. Yes, and many aren't prepared.
Ms. Schmeiser. Too many are not prepared. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. I am interested in what you have found.
Dr. Phillips, you mentioned going in 2 directions instead of
50. In conversations I have had with Secretary Duncan, I
worried a little bit about--you know, I have been interested to
see how the common standards worked.
The tension that happened in the 1990s, as I remember it,
was--and going back to Senator Enzi's point, I think there is a
difference between national and Federal. National to me means
States getting together, doing things. That is national in our
very diverse constitutional system, which is very different
than Taiwan and Singapore--small, people very much the same.
Federal means Washington meddling in that.
I had wondered whether it might not be even a good idea if,
as things went along, we might have two or three common, maybe
a Massachusetts-led coalition of States, maybe an Iowa-led
coalition of States. I believe you were talking about maybe one
type of assessment and another type of assessment.
In other words, to build into this effort to raise
standards enough diversity to provide a safety valve, which is
a safety valve against mediocrity, for one thing, to make sure
that national doesn't mean average. To avoid political
correctness or the feeling of one part of the country having a
view imposed on it that it doesn't agree with, say, as history
standards or other standards come up.
What has been the thinking on this as you all have worked
through this?
Mr. Phillips. Well, I think that is right. I don't know how
many consortia of States will be funded, but that is about the
right number. And what is important is this is a substantial
improvement over what we have today, where each State is going
in a different direction.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Mr. Phillips. One thing I would like to say is that these
are grassroots efforts, and Federal funding of these efforts
doesn't make it Federal. I believe these efforts ultimately
will need Federal funding. There are many examples where the
Federal Government has provided funds without being in charge
or in control.
Senator Alexander. I can agree with that, although one has
to be careful, as we move on. Mr. Chairman, on his point about
Tennessee standards, you are exactly right. They were low. I
always thought the cure for that, though, was just to establish
a rating system and say, like you do in football, there is
Division 1, 2, and 3, and just tell the people of Tennessee,
they are playing in Division 3, and they would very quickly be
embarrassed into Division 1.
They have actually changed under the Governor's leadership
and partly just because of the embarrassment of what you just
described.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander, I think, was talking in regards to some
of the questions I have, which is sort of how to set national
standards and make sure they are national. I understand the
importance of State flexibility and local flexibility beyond
State flexibility in implementing these standards, but Dr.
Phillips, I was kind of concerned. I mean, you did give the
examples of the loophole in NCLB, which is to set these very
low standards in some States.
I am wondering how we are able to have Common Core
standards, but are States, how do we guard against States still
using that loophole?
Mr. Phillips. Well, one thing would be to be aware of this
when ESEA is reauthorized. Therefore, it is on your radar.
Senator Franken. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Phillips. Right. Exactly.
Senator Franken. Right. Right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Phillips. One way you could do this is if you adopt
common standards, you have closed part of the loophole. What
you have done there is you now have a reasonably common set of
skills that you want students to learn. What you then need to
do is take the second step and rein in these discrepancies in
the performance standards. It is the cut scores on the tests.
Many States that have low-performance standards have
challenging content standards. In other words, they tell the
press we are expecting all this of our students, but then they
lower their cut score so that all the students pass. One way
around that is through international benchmarking, where I am
assuming if you have three or four consortia, when they set
that cut score on the test, whatever the test is, they need to
make sure that it is benchmarked against the best in the world.
So that you are then flying with radar. You know how high
that standard should be. If all the consortia do that, and if
they are benchmarked against the best in the world, then they
will be reasonably consistent and reasonably high, and that
would close that loophole.
Senator Franken. How do we guard against--how do we make
them do that?
Mr. Phillips. Well, first of all, I am assuming that when
these standards are set, a lot of people are going to be
watching. If the standards are set low, people like myself are
going to write a lot of articles about it. Another thing you
could do, you could build into the ESEA an evaluation of these
activities, something like the National Academy of Sciences,
where there could be an evaluation component where they would
look at these things.
Senator Franken. OK. I wanted to get to another thing,
which is, I am very familiar with computer-adaptive tests,
which I think are great, and they allow you to take them three
times a year and study growth and actually use them as
diagnostic tools so you can actually teach because of the
results of tests. I have had principals refer to the No Child
Left Behind tests that are taken in April, and you get the
results back in June as ``autopsies.'' So I understand the
importance of those.
At the same time, Dr. Schmeiser talked about multiple
assessments, and I am wondering how what you are talking
about--the kind of tests you are talking about seem to be very
objective, extremely objective, and can you do the other kind
of multiple assessments with those, with the computer-adaptable
tests, or does it mean that you have to take other tests, too?
How do you reconcile these kind of two models, either of you?
Mr. Phillips. I will start. I don't see that there is a
problem because I can't imagine, except for some rare
instances, tasks that could not be administered by computer.
Some of them may not be scored by computer, but they could be
administered by a computer, which cuts down on the cost and can
also be adaptive.
I think there is a lot of flexibility and a lot of capacity
and scalability with computer-adaptive testing that will make
this consortia of States--a computer doesn't care whether you
are testing a million students or 300 million students. It is
scalable, and it makes this whole thing feasible. I don't see
it as being incompatible with wanting to have multiple
measures.
Senator Franken. OK. Thank you.
I hope we do get another round, but if not, I will submit
my other questions in writing. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Thurlow, what is your opinion of the current ESEA
requirement on making AYP No. 1 and establishing a school or a
system as ``needs improvement?''
Ms. Thurlow. I can speak to that in terms of the tremendous
benefits that we have seen for students with disabilities with
a system that has set standards, held all students to those
standards, and required that there be accountability for
students. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages has been the
requirement that we be able to see how subgroups are performing
so that we can actually see how students with disabilities are
doing.
I think that has been an advantage. That doesn't speak
necessarily to opinions about AYP, etc. But the impetus behind
that has been good.
Senator Isakson. Well, I know on page 6 of your testimony,
the last sentence in the next to the last paragraph says,
``Retrofitting assessments and accommodations and developing a
series of alternative assessments because the general
assessments do not work for all students is expensive for
schools and stigmatizing for students.''
I understand what that statement means. I am married to a
special ed teacher. I have grown up--for 42 years. When you
started your career, I was already married to a special ed
teacher. I also know that there have been a lot kids, the 1
percent cognitive disability, which the chairman mentioned, I
agree with your response about expanding that.
However, there are many different disabilities, and I have
been advocating for a couple of years, really, when we get to
this reauthorization, considering that the assessment of a
special needs student be determined by the IEP that the parent
and the special ed teachers develop, rather than being a
singular assessment. What would you think about that?
Ms. Thurlow. Well, I would have concerns about that. The
IEP has some very specific purposes related to laying out the
goals for the student to get through individualized
instructions. Those goals can be in many areas--behavioral
supports, etc.
The IEP really is not a mechanism for accountability. It
wasn't designed to do that. We would have different things all
over the place, not just in different States, but in different
districts and in different schools and in different classrooms
based on IEP team members' understandings. I think it has been
a tremendous advantage to have same standards for all students,
and we would lose that.
Senator Isakson. Well, I am not talking about the--of
course, I get that sometimes words mean different things to
different people. I am not talking about the standards of the
curriculum, but I am talking about the method of assessment of
the achievement of the standards of the curriculum.
Ms. Thurlow. The IEP doesn't provide us with a method.
Senator Isakson. Is it not--wasn't it developed so the
parent and the teacher got together to determine what was in
the best interest of the child and their instruction for the
coming year?
Ms. Thurlow. It is a legal document that helps parents work
with educators to determine the specialized instruction that is
needed, what are the certain areas that we need to focus on,
hopefully, to make sure that the student has access to the
curriculum.
Senator Isakson. My reason for bringing this up is because
in the last sentence in this paragraph that I read that you
wrote, you could apply the same paragraph to ``needs
improvement'' assessments on systems. Sometimes because of one
disaggregated group, a system can become a ``needs
improvement'' system or a school can become a ``needs
improvement'' school. And I am a growth model guy. I think you
ought to give schools a chance to work out of the stigma.
A lot of times special needs get the blame for that when,
in fact, they are somewhat in gridlock because of the lack of
any flexibility in what the assessment model will be. That is
what I am getting at.
Ms. Thurlow. From my perspective, it is easy to blame a
group when we don't know exactly how to make sure that they
reach those standards, when we haven't figured out all of the
ways to make sure that their achievement is improving.
Senator Isakson. Well, I would love to work with you on
this subject because it is the single biggest thing that is
going to affect IDEA and special needs as we come together, and
I don't think this should become stigmatized, first of all. I
don't think systems or schools should become stigmatized
because we don't have the flexibility to assess the same
standards for those kids so they get the same break,
understanding the accommodation some of them are going to need.
Ms. Thurlow. Right. Just one last thing. We know that there
are places where it is working, where students with
disabilities are achieving, and the achievement gap is
disappearing for students with disabilities. We have to look to
those where they talk about shared understandings,
collaboration, making sure they expect the same thing of all
students, etc.
Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Isakson, I look forward to working
with you on this, too, because it is something that I know you
care deeply about, and it is something that we have to focus on
in the reauthorization of ESEA. I look forward to working with
you on that.
Senator Isakson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Bennet.
Statement of Senator Bennet
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing.
Thank everybody for your testimony.
One of the, I think, unintended consequences of No Child
Left Behind is that there is a horrible springtime ritual in
this country, in our school districts, where we spend 2 or
sometimes even 3 weeks administering what are largely
standardized tests, having led up to that period of time with
weeks and weeks and weeks, in some cases months of test
preparation. Then that ritual ends, and throughout the rest of
our 181-day school year, whatever it is, we do all the things
we wanted to do during the school year. Like my two daughters
are practicing Shakespeare right now in their elementary school
in Denver.
I think one of the causes--there are many causes of that.
One of the causes of that is that we have had far too many
standards at every grade level that have exhausted our kids and
exhausted our teachers and not given us the information that we
need, either for accountability purposes or for teaching and
learning purposes.
I remember when I was superintendent in Denver, somebody
came one day--I wish I could remember who it was, but I don't--
and he had two books in his hand, and he was standing with our
principal. He said, ``This is your ninth grade math textbook.
It is in English, and it costs $115. This is the ninth grade
math textbook they use in Singapore, which parenthetically is
in English and costs $15.''
''The good news,'' he said, ``is that this math textbook
exists somewhere inside this math textbook, if you can only
find it.'' Of course, what he was saying was we have to drill
down in a much more rigorous way on fewer standards, fewer,
clearer, higher, which is the purpose of your work, Dr. Paine,
and the work of the other States.
I have two questions for anybody who wants to answer them.
One, will we have accomplished finding this math textbook in
these standards? Do we feel comfortable that we really are not
covering the waterfront anymore, but we are going to do what is
important, benchmark to an international norm? What can we do
to help make sure that is true?
And second, what are the implications for technology or for
test-making generally that may get us out of this springtime
ritual that is so counterproductive for our kids?
Dr. Paine, maybe we will start with you?
Mr. Paine. You sound like a school guy.
[Laughter.]
Very insightful. I went on a trip with some of our
colleagues with CCSSO to Singapore, and the mantra is teach
less, learn more. I think that the fewer, clearer, higher
mantra in the----
Senator Bennet. Oh, I should say, Dr. Paine--sorry--that
the point of that is that our bell regularly gets rung by the
ninth grade kids in Singapore in terms of math results. So,
sorry.
Mr. Paine. Exactly. I think that reflective in the Common
Core standards is the concept that, and I can speak from
personal experience in West Virginia, that we have narrowed our
State standards significantly, particularly in grades
kindergarten through third grade, where we have reduced the
numbers of standards, made them much more concise. We had the
rigor, but we didn't have the simplicity, if you will, of
concept so that we can really hone in on a few concepts well
and lay that foundation for later grades.
That is one very practical thing that I think you will see
in the Common Core set of standards. I do also agree with you
with regard to this ritual that occurs every spring.
I have to tell you just a little story. I have just
finished touring our State for about 3 weeks, conducting focus
groups with the kids, teachers, parents, school
superintendents, and local board presidents. Interviewed each
of our State board members, business community, PTA, and
numerous, numerous people.
I got to the kids, and I talked to them about the State
assessments and how much emphasis we place on the present model
of using State assessments to assess our standards. I bring
this up for a purpose so that I hope in the reauthorization we
can find a way to fix this.
I was talking with the kids about this notion of linking
teacher evaluation to student performance results and
specifically the practice that seems to be emphasized right now
is a summative test, which I really have to question, I have to
be honest with you. I am all about accountability, but I think
you have to be very careful about making those kinds of
singular decisions on one particular assessment.
The kids said, ``Well, that means on the State test, which
we really don't take that seriously, we can take out Mr.
Green.'' And I thought, ``Oh, no.'' Then I said, ``So you don't
value that State test?'' I said, ``Do you value the NAEP?'' I
serve on the NAGBE board--governing board for the NAEP.
They said, ``Well, sometimes we don't take that test as
seriously.'' I won't tell you what they really said. So I said,
``What test do you really value that will motivate you to learn
all that you are taught daily?'' And with respect to my
colleague that sits to my left, they said, ``The ACT.'' If we
were an SAT State, they probably would have said that, too.
I think we have to figure out a way to merge purposes with
a simpler testing strategy, if you will, in that springtime
ritual that could be spread throughout the year and more
frequent intervals as we look at assessing the Common Core so
that we can make these assessments very important to our
students. That is the point I wanted to bring out.
Mr. Phillips. Well, let me address the technology question.
The whole idea of technology is to make testing less burdensome
and to get out of the way of instruction so you can have more
instruction. I mean, just an obvious example of that, if you
give a test that takes 2 months to get back to the students,
you have made a lot of progress if you can get that result back
in 15 seconds so the teacher can actually do something with it.
Technology is an important ingredient in this as we move to
a new set of what I hope are State comparable assessments in
order to make it feasible, in order to cut the costs down, and
actually get better measurement because these type of tests--
one of the reasons, for example, why there is a need--why there
has been discussion for a 2 percent assessment is that existing
paper/pencil tests give terrible measurements for that bottom
set of students. So, there is a need to have a new test.
With a computer-adaptive test, it goes right down there and
gets as good a measurement for them as it gets for everybody
else. There is no need for a 2 percent assessment if you have a
computer-adaptive assessment because it is doing as good a job
for that bottom 2 percent as it is doing for the middle and for
the top.
It is leveraging the technology that makes this feasible
and practical and cost-effective in the future.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Great questions and answers, provoked me to
think about some questions.
Now let us see, Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to thank you for having this hearing and
certainly thank all of your witnesses for the time you spent
preparing to come and sharing with us your thoughts and
expertise.
I want to follow up on Senator Bennet's question. It wasn't
my first question, but since we are right here. Dr. Phillips,
what you just said on the computer-adaptive testing, that what
it does is, it helps I guess from the bottom 2 percent just as
much as the top 2 percent. Can you elaborate on what you mean
by that?
Mr. Phillips. Yes. A typical paper/pencil test, let us say,
has got 40 items. Everybody takes the same 40 items. If you are
a low-achieving student, that test is too hard for you. It
doesn't do a good job of saying what you know. If you are a
high-achieving student, it is too easy for you. It doesn't
really measure--it sets a ceiling. You can't go any further.
What the computer-adaptive test does is it focuses on your
level of ability, and it drills down and gets better and better
and better measurements until it can't do any better. It
therefore gives the same accuracy to a low-achieving student
and to a high-achieving student.
Particularly, if you are measuring growth, which is one of
the initiatives in the future, which has been mentioned, one of
the things you see right now with paper and pencil tests,
anytime you have growth measures, you always see the same
phenomenon. High-achieving students do worse over time. Low-
achieving students do better than you expect over time.
The reason for that is the high-achieving students are at
the ceiling and can't go anywhere. The low-achieving students
capitalize on chance, and they will bump up just due to chance.
You get a much more accurate measurement of growth if you have
the same precision and accuracy for high-achieving students as
you have for low-achieving students. That is particularly
important if you are going to hold teachers accountable.
If you are a teacher with a classroom of high-achieving
students, it is going to be a disaster if you try to measure
growth because they are likely to either not show any growth or
show negative growth. Particularly when you get into the growth
business, for low-achieving and high-achieving students, you
need better measurement. That is what this would do.
Senator Hagan. I think one of the things I have been
concerned about is those high-achieving students, sometimes I
don't think we expect as much out of them, that we have got to
continue setting much, much higher expectations at the same
time.
From your computer-adaptive testing, how many States are
doing that right now, and what do you see to encourage other
States to actually get onboard?
Mr. Phillips. Many States around the country have some
portion of their testing being done by computer adaptive. I
could be wrong, but the three States I mentioned I think are
the only ones that are completely and totally computer
adaptive. Oregon is the only State that has been actually
approved through peer review and No Child Left Behind. The
other two will go through that process shortly.
What I describe, shows that all testing companies are
involved in this. There is a lot of innovation, R&D going on.
If there was a signal from the Federal Government through ESEA
or through the $350 million that this is important, there would
be a whole lot more innovation and R&D, and the computer-
adaptive tests in the future would be even better than they are
today. Even today, they are practical and feasible and would
give you what you need.
Senator Hagan. One other comment that you said on that is
that 15 minutes or whatever after the test is taken, then there
could be some analysis in the States that use these.
Do the teachers actually then go back and do the students
see these tests, see what they have done right and wrong?
Because so many times, I think these students take these tests.
You never see the booklets again. You never understand what you
did wrong in order to evaluate it from that student's
perspective.
Mr. Phillips. Yes. What you could do with these tests, just
to give you an example, in a typical paper and pencil test, let
us say it is eighth grade and you are measuring the Pythagorean
theorem, which is a subset of mathematics. You may only have
two items that cover that. So you can't get a lot of good
information. The teacher can't get a lot of good information to
help determine if their students are learning the Pythagorean
theorem.
With computer-adaptive testing, each student----
Senator Hagan. I understand that, but do they actually go
back and look at it?
Mr. Phillips. Yes, they do.
Senator Hagan. OK.
Mr. Phillips. They get an immediate report, and you can
see, ``Oh, my students need to learn the Pythagorean theorem.''
Senator Hagan. I had one other question that I wanted to
talk about just for a minute, and that is North Carolina is the
first State in the Nation to create a Center for 21st Century
Skills, with the goal of identifying those skills that will be
most sought after in the workforce when--in the future with the
idea to improve the States' education system to ensure that the
students actually graduate with those skills.
Dr. Paine, I know in West Virginia, that you are also a
leader in this effort, that West Virginia is. And I was just
wondering, can you share with me any of what the Federal
Government might do to encourage more States to identify and
promote 21st century skills, and how can we sustain our State's
commitment to this as new assessments continue to be put
forward?
Mr. Paine. Thank you.
Certainly, North Carolina was a leader, and we were the
second State following North Carolina. I think that is a very
insightful question. We tend to, if we are going to make
decisions, we want to make sure we emphasize content, but embed
higher-level skills--those ``21st century'' critical thinking,
problem-solving, the IT skills, so forth--within the content.
Once again, when you do that, and that is what North
Carolina has done as well, and that is what the business sector
really wants us to do in preparing a workforce. Whether it is a
company with an international presence or whether it is a
national company, a Fortune 500 company, or if it is a small
business in West Virginia, I hear the same kinds of
expectations. That calls for different teaching methodologies,
which also calls for different assessment practices.
And in response to your previous question, because they
both dovetail, there is one of the consortia that has developed
is committed to the adaptive testing process, along with other
types of measures. It is called Smarter Balance, and there are
some 30 States that have come together to be a part of this
consortia. It is being led by Sue Gendron, who is the former
commissioner for Maine, who has just recently stepped down to
head up this consortium.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley is gone.
Senator Casey.
Statement of Senator Casey
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thanks for
organizing this hearing and calling us together.
We want to thank our witnesses for your testimony and your
work and your scholarship.
When I have traveled across Pennsylvania, as a State
government-elected official and as a candidate and then in the
time I have been in the Senate, whenever the topic of No Child
Left Behind came up, it would usually be raised by others, and
they would ask for a response. I found that people, whether
they were mostly in the context of teachers and administrators,
but others as well--I found that whenever the topic came up,
people were even-tempered. They were always mad.
[Laughter.]
They had a real frustration, I think, with the gap between
what was--what undergirded the original, the legislation itself
and the expectations that flowed from that and then what the
reality was when it was implemented. This is a broad kind of
overview and too simplistic, but I will just frame it as simply
as I can.
There was a sense that one side of the debate was yelling
for more investment. The legislation made promises. The other
side was saying we needed more measuring and assessment, and so
that was implemented, or standards as well. It seems like we
failed on both. We failed on the investment, and we failed on
how we implemented the standards and assessments.
I know we don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to delve a
little bit into the assessment question. Dr. Paine, I will
start with you, and I invite others to comment as well. I found
these two sentences among the many in your testimony on page 4
under the Common Assessment Development section.
You said, and I quote, in the first paragraph in that
section, ``Aligned standards and assessments will allow States
aligned teacher preparation and other supports designed to
improve overall student achievement and close achievement
gaps.'' And then the sentence after that, which I thought was
even more pointed in terms of what we want to talk about.
``Teachers from participating States will benefit from high-
quality instructional supports and materials that are aligned
to the core standards.''
I wanted to focus your attention just on what are and how
would you define and give examples of ``high-quality
instructional supports and materials?''
Mr. Paine. I think you hit on perhaps the core of what
could be the most important element, in my mind, of the
reauthorization, and that is----
Senator Casey. We didn't choreograph this either.
Mr. Paine. No, sir. I have been very even-tempered about
that, but----
[Laughter.]
I really think you hit on the issue, and that is developing
the quality of teaching in our State, in our country is
critical to the success of the education. We already know from
research that that is probably the No. 1 variable that affects
student achievement outside of what goes on outside of the
home.
I think that we need to very quickly capitalize on a set of
common standards and an assessment strategy to measure the full
scope of that, which includes a variety of different measures,
and help our teachers to understand how to become what I would
call ``assessment literate.'' Teach them how to read these
standards and how to teach these standards and how to assess
student achievement within those standards, and then to hold
those accountable for their preparation.
And I think as we have one set of standards and hopefully
can arrive at perhaps one set of assessments, perhaps two in
two consortia, that allows us to really focus our efforts on
how we do prepare teachers, and what are the best strategies
for doing so? Then, how do we build a performance-based
accountability system that makes some sense? We can do that
with the collective energies of all the States.
Senator Casey. Do you have any particular examples of those
two words I mentioned, the materials and supports? Can you just
amplify on that a little?
Mr. Paine. That also allows a real focused effort on
developing high-quality resources and materials in support of
that Common Core. Instead of necessarily differences in the way
that States, other resource partners, vendors, and so forth
focus their efforts, all will be focused on that Common Core
set of standards, which I think will capture a real positive
synergy as we develop real rich, robust resources to support
the teaching of those standards.
Senator Casey. I know I am just about out of time. Anybody
else want to quickly add to that?
[No response.]
Well, thanks very much.
Mr. Chairman, we will submit questions for the record as
well. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
Can I just return here to a couple of things? One
specifically. Senator Bennet spoke about the annual spring
exercise of testing and how much time it takes. Dr. Paine, if I
am not mistaken, I made some notes here, you said we need a
simpler testing strategy, one that goes on during the school
year.
One of the things that I have thought about for a long time
is, how do teachers during the school year get an accurate
assessment of each of their students that they are teaching on
an ongoing basis so that you don't wait 2 or 3 or 4 months to
find that something is happening here, and this student is not
learning something?
It could be a simple thing like, well, in math it could be
students are doing all right, but this one student, for some
reason, is not doing very well. They seem to do OK in adding
and multiplication and stuff, but they have a problem with
fractions. If a teacher can find that out, then they can deal
with this student and deal with the specificity of what it is
that that student can't quite grasp.
I am familiar with a program that has been ongoing in Iowa
that--at least I have heard from teachers who seem to love it--
it has been kind of an experimental type program. It is
technology-based, computer-based, where--and I played with it
once a couple of years ago when it was just started to look at
how if I were a teacher, how I would get this information.
It is a very rapid type of thing where literally on an
almost daily basis or weekly basis, I should say, teachers get
good information back about how their students are doing in
each of these subjects. They also find out whether or not there
is some part of that subject, maybe it is English, they are
doing all right with punctuation. They seem to be doing all
right with words and spelling, but they don't know where to
place a verb. And they pick that up. The teacher gets that on
an ongoing basis rather than just at a test at the end of the
year that tests a more broad-based kind of achievement.
Are you familiar with any other kinds of programs; I am
sure that is not the only one. Are there other kinds of
programs that are technology-based, computer-based where you
get this kind of simpler testing strategy that goes on during
the year and doesn't just rely upon one or two big tests?
Mr. Paine. There are programs and strategies that do
exactly as you say and certain products that are produced by
vendors out there in support of the teaching of standards. One
of the projects that the Council of Chief State School Officers
is undertaking, a very exciting initiative, I might add, is
looking at what is the next generation of learners, and how do
we support those needs?
Embedded within that concept, with the richness of
technology that is now available to us, is to assess each
student against each of these common standards and their
progress in very real time so that teachers have access to that
information via a very rich, robust data system on their
desktop so that they can make those kinds of very frequent
real-time decisions.
If you think about the possibilities of how that network
then could be expanded to the home or to other places or a data
system like that, we really have the capability to make those
kinds of decisions. That is the undergirding of that kind of
assessment system that I know you are referring to, those
classroom assessments developed by teachers that are done in
alignment with a broader assessment strategy that includes also
a summative test.
The Chairman. Because one of the things that it seems to me
that technology-based learning and the new technology,
computer-based programs we have, kind of gets, to English
language learners. Dr. Rivera, how has technology helped or
hurt students who have to both be tested in English language
learning, but also be tested in the core subjects that they
have to learn also?
This is where I lack any knowledge. I don't really know
whether or not technology has helped this. Has it assisted it?
Have they focused on it? What is happening with new
technologies in terms of English language learners?
Ms. Rivera. I am not aware of efforts currently to develop
assessments specifically. The English language proficiency
tests, I think they are all given as paper and pencil, although
perhaps there are some efforts to start developing them as
computer-based assessments.
In terms of English language learners, what is going to be
important in terms of the technology is to make sure that the
schools that they are attending have access to the technology
and instruction and that the instructional program integrates
the technology and students are very capable of using the
technology before we go off and try to test them using the
technology.
I know that I worked a little bit on the standards at ACT
actually on the writing assessment for NAEP, and the endeavor
was to put NAEP on a computer-based platform. The committee I
was on was to look at accommodations for English language
learners and for students with disabilities. One of the
cautions was to make sure that the instructional program really
includes that kind of teaching. If it doesn't, then it is going
to be problematic.
Also computers need to be available to students, and I know
NAEP had a--perhaps it has been resolved. I know it was an
issue in terms of the writing assessment that schools did not
have the available computers to allow the testing to happen in
an easy fashion.
The Chairman. Dr. Phillips, you indicated you wanted to
address this?
Mr. Phillips. Just in your earlier question, in the three
States I mentioned, each of them have three opportunities for
the student to take a test. In between those opportunities, the
teacher can develop formative assessments also on a computer
and get results on the same scale as a summative assessment.
So that if the student is having trouble with the
Pythagorean theorem, she could say, ``Well, what is it about
the Pythagorean theorem you don't know?'' and then develop an
assessment based on that.
The other thing is your second question. In Oregon, their
entire test for English language learners is computer-adaptive.
It covers listening and speaking, and it is working just fine.
There haven't been any issues.
Also, in terms of languages, there are no limit to the
number of languages you can test in. The fact that we are doing
it in English, that is just a random choice. You can do it in
Spanish or any--for example, in Hawaii, we are doing it in
Hawaiian.
The Chairman. Is it written, or is it spoken? Is it
something that is an audible-type test?
Mr. Phillips. In Oregon, it is both written and spoken.
The Chairman. Both.
Mr. Phillips. Right. So you are assessing listening and
speaking.
The Chairman. Interesting. Interesting.
Ms. Rivera. It is an English language proficiency test that
they have, right? Right. It is not a content assessment, which
is different.
The Chairman. Right. Just for English language.
Ms. Rivera. Right.
The Chairman. Senator Enzi.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will start with Dr. Rivera. For English language
learners, are there accommodations that could be used for all
types and forms of assessments that would maintain the validity
of the scores for those students?
Ms. Rivera. Well, that is an area we have been working with
quite extensively, which is to identify what States are doing
and what kinds of accommodations are available to States. There
are accommodations, and we really have organized accommodations
around the--for English language learners, the main thing that
they need is access to the language of the test. They need to
have linguistic access to the test. We call these linguistic
accommodations.
States have many different kinds of accommodations, and
they have policies that list accommodations. Often what they
do, does not distinguish the accommodations for English
language learners from students with disabilities. Making the
decision as to which accommodation is appropriate for these
students, I mean, Braille is not going to help an English
language learner. Or moving things around, whatever. There are
different kinds of accommodations.
It is very important that folks really have an
understanding of what the needs are of the English language
learner and that the appropriate accommodations are available
to them, and those would be linguistic accommodations or
accommodations that address the language, allow them access to
the content of the test.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
When Dr. Paine was speaking earlier, he reminded me of some
student meetings that I have had. One of the things that really
disturbed me is there is this general impression out there that
there is no value in taking these tests. It doesn't matter how
I do on it or what I do on it or even if I do it.
How do we overcome that? Did you come up with any great
ideas based on your student/teacher work? And anybody else,
too. If they take it seriously, it makes a difference in the
scores, I suspect.
Mr. Paine. Those students that are preparing to go to
college certainly value college entrance tests. I think one of
the secrets might be that we merge purposes of an assessment of
the Common Core with a purpose, the same purpose or a shared
purpose, excuse me, of college-going rates.
One other is that in our technical adult education classes,
we are moving toward a 50 percent performance-based component,
not just a paper/pencil test, as to whether you can be a good
electrician. Now you will be juried by practitioners that will
come in and actually assess your progress on a real,
contextual, life-learning situation. Can you actually wire the
house, so to speak?
If we can get at more performance-based types of
assessments like that, those tend to engage kids, as you know.
And move away from those traditional types of tests that kids
are, quite frankly, tired of, that don't necessarily yield the
kind of learning information that we need to know about kids in
this 21st century. I think that is where this whole computer-
adaptive and other strategies of assessment really provide
tremendous hope as we assess the Common Core.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Ms. Rivera. I think that one of the very important pieces
in all of this is the knowledge that the teachers have to be
able to use the information that they gain from assessments.
Also for them to be able to feel that they can develop
classroom-based assessments and understand what skills their
students need. That is really at the base, and it is very
important.
It is not--teachers really don't feel comfortable often
with assessment. Even if there is a rich body of data, they
don't always feel comfortable being able to look at it and
figure out what it is that it is really telling them about
their students. We need to spend some time and some effort in
helping teachers to understand how to use the information, how
to use assessments appropriately.
I think in the new Race to the Top and the way these
assessments are being developed, there is supposed to be an
integrated system where there is summative assessment as well
as perhaps benchmark assessments and classroom assessments.
That whole system needs to be linked and connected, and
teachers need to be able to have access to the data.
Senator Enzi. I have to tell you, all of that really
bothers me. I thought that teachers were taught to assess and
that that was their job in the classroom on a daily basis, and
in that regard, they ought to be assessment literate. Why do we
keep saying that the teachers don't know how to use the
assessments?
The assessment may be bad. That still really bothers me. I
will have some more questions that will deal with that.
Dr. Thurlow, quickly because my time has expired. Have
students with disabilities been included in the development
growth models, and if not, why not?
Ms. Thurlow. Growth models are complex, and I believe that
students with disabilities have been included, if they
participate in the regular assessment with accommodations that
don't invalidate the results. So, yes, they have been included
in that way. We have had students who are in the alternate
assessment based on alternate achievement standards, and we
haven't figured out how to include them very well. I think it
is something that we are still working on.
Likewise, any other alternate assessment, unless it is
based on the grade-level achievement standards, we haven't
figured out very well how to include that in the growth model.
Those are probably some of the students who most need to be
included in a growth model.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
The Chairman. Can I just add to that, those would be that
10 percent, or the 1 percent?
Ms. Thurlow. Yes. Yes.
The Chairman. Well, 1 percent, but it is 10 percent of
students with disabilities.
Ms. Thurlow. Right.
The Chairman. Like a different slice, they would fit into
what Senator Enzi was talking about?
Ms. Thurlow. Yes. Yes.
The Chairman. Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just had two last questions. The first is that I think
the State tests and NCLB has done a lousy job basically on
accountability and a lousy job on teaching and learning
because, among other things, we sort of push those two things
together in the summative assessment that we are talking about,
and I think it is really important for us to pull those apart.
Accountability is one piece of this puzzle, and it is
different at this level of Government than it is at the State
level and than it is at the district level. We are talking
about measures of teacher effectiveness. Some of us are
interested in differentiating pay. There are all kinds of
things that fall into this category, and this category is
teaching and learning and the ability of a teacher to assess
her kids and then differentiate her instruction based on what
she has seen to be able to meet the individual needs of the
kids in her classroom.
Those are not the same thing, it seems to me. I wonder, as
we are thinking about both the summative assessment at the end
and the interim assessments or the benchmarks, the formative
assessments, whatever it is we are talking about, whether we
are giving thought to those distinctions? Are they important?
Is this something we should be paying attention to from the
schoolhouse level?
Does anybody have a reaction to that at all?
Mr. Paine. I would, very quickly. You brought up an issue
that I think is very, very important for us to address as we
think about Common Core and how do we assess the Common Core?
How do we support assessment literate teachers, and how do we
then look at their performance relative to accountability
measures?
I haven't met a teacher in our State that is not interested
in making more money. It is how do I make more money? If you
are going to link my performance to one single assessment, that
could be problematic. We need to look at models that support a
variety of student learning outcomes.
One of the issues that I would have with a typical--here we
are calling them typical growth models now that assess annual
progress, why don't growth models measure progress over more
short, frequent intervals such as every 2 months where we drop
several types of ways to assess progress at shorter, frequent
intervals so we can inform kids, their parents, and teachers
about their progress and incorporate all of that into some kind
of a growth model of accountability?
Senator Bennet. Is there anybody else?
Ms. Schmeiser. I would add a quick comment that I agree
totally with the last comment. I would also say that the Common
Core standards allow us an opportunity to align our systems in
this country like we have never been able to do before, grade
by grade, in an aligned, coherent way, looking at student
growth longitudinally over time.
Inside of that can be multiple measures that can be
embedded in instruction. They can be benchmark examinations.
They can be summative. When you have a common goal and when it
is clear what kids need to know and be able to do at the end of
the third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade, you open doors for
being able to have an aligned system both every day in the
classroom to improve instruction all the way through the
system.
I would say, Senator Bennet, I think it is very important
to begin to think about the roles that assessment can play in
the classroom, as well as for different purposes at different
times, and make sure from the very beginning they are well-
planned and well-aligned as we look at longitudinal student
progress.
Senator Bennet. Well, what is interesting about that is
that the more aligned, if you imagine a system that is
perfectly aligned--I don't think there is one. I have never
seen it in the United States. It ought to be a system, sort of
ironically, as a consequence of that alignment that allows the
system to differentiate to the maximum degree. That is really
what we are talking about.
Ms. Schmeiser. Yes, that is right.
Senator Bennet. The last question I had was for Dr.
Phillips because I am least familiar with the things that you
have talked about today, and I appreciate learning about it.
Has anybody done an analysis of the capacity of the school
districts in this country from a technological point of view to
administer what you are talking about? Because I suspect there
is huge variability in the United States of how many computers
are available, the wiring, and all of that. I was just curious
whether there is something that I could look at and read about
that?
Mr. Phillips. There are surveys. And what was found in the
three States I mentioned is that that is not really an issue
because since the testing window is the whole year, you don't
have to have a computer for every student at the same time. And
in the rare cases where a district or a school doesn't have a
computer, this is obvious leverage to get them one. It is a
kind of a win-win situation.
Even in Hawaii, where even the most remote islands, I think
we only found maybe one case where they needed a computer and
didn't have one. In the old days when you thought about
computer-adaptive testing, this was an issue, but it is really
not an issue when the testing window is all year long.
Ms. Thurlow. I would refer you also to a study that NAEP
did. I think in 2008, they collected information about
technology, and it was quite positive. I can't remember all the
facts, but I could certainly get the reference to you.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
Senator Enzi. I have questions, but I will submit them.
The Chairman. Well, I think this has been a very
informative panel. I join with Senator Bennet and Senator Enzi
and all the rest of the Senators in thanking you for your
excellent testimony, both written and verbal.
We will leave the record open for 10 days for other
questions that we might want to submit to you in writing,
appreciate if you would answer those.
I also ask that you continue to keep us informed as we move
along in ESEA reauthorization, your suggestions, your advice. I
am sure that through your different networks, you will know
what we are doing here. I hope that you will continue to inform
and advise us as we move along.
And I hope that we, in turn, our staffs can continue to be
in touch with you as we develop this.
So thank you very much. Great hearing. Appreciate it.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Editor's Note: The following report was requested to be
included in the hearing record: Policy Analysis--Behind the
Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards
by Neal McCluskey. This report may be found at http://
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11217.
Due to the high cost of printing, materials that have been
previously published are not reprinted in the hearing record.]
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]