The intent of large-scale assessment systems is to promote student achievement toward specific standards by holding schools accountable for the performance of all students. However, it is difficult to know whether large-scale assessment systems are having this intended effect as they are currently implemented. In this article, the authors examine the research on intended and unintended consequences of large-scale assessment and accountability systems, highlight critical issues in using large-scale assessment programs to measure student learning and to inform intervention, and provide guidelines for promoting the intervention validity of large-scale assessments.
Abrams, L.M., Pedulla, J.J., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.
2.
Allington, R.L., & McGill-Frazen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6, 397-414.
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-33. Retrieved May 13, 2003 , from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18
5.
Barksdale-Ladd, M.A., & Thomas, K.F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397.
6.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Callender, S., & Bolt, S.E. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (Technical Report 32). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-73.
8.
Bolt, S.E., & Quenemoen, R.L. (2006). The growing demand for expertise in assessment and diverse learners to inform the implementation of large-scale accountability systems. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 49-62.
9.
Braden, J.P. (2002). Best practices for school psychologists in educational accountability: High stakes testing and educational reform. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 301-319). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
10.
Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R.J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. Journal of Special Education , 41, 2-16.
11.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
12.
Christenson, S.L., Decker, D.M., Triezenberg, H.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Reschly, A. (2007). Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities. Educational Policy, 21, 662-690.
13.
Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n2.html
14.
Decker, G. (2003). Using data to drive student achievement in the classroom and on high-stakes tests. T.H.E. Journal, 30, 44-45.
15.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
16.
Education Commission of the States. (2002). Rewards and sanctions for school districts and schools. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/18/24/1824.htm
17.
Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to intelligence tests. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 224-233.
18.
Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs (Synthesis Report 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis23.html
19.
Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments . Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 30(2), 81-92.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
21.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.
22.
Gordon, S.P., & Reese, M. (1997). High stakes testing: Worth the price? Journal of School Leadership, 7, 345-368.
23.
Griffin, B.W., & Heidorn, M.H. (1996). An examination of the relationship between minimum competency test performance and dropping out of high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 243-252.
24.
Hager, K., & Slocum, T. (2005). Using alternate assessment to inform improve educational outcomes. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 54-59.
25.
Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
26.
Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
27.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
28.
Hixson, M., & McGlinchey, M. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193-203.
29.
Hoff, D.J. (2002). States revise the meaning of "proficient."Education Week, 22(6), 1, 24-25.
30.
Jacob, B.A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99-121.
31.
Jones, G., Jones, B.D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.
32.
Lillard, D.R., & DeCicca, P.P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459-473.
33.
Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
34.
Mehrens, W.A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n13.html
35.
Meyers, R.H. (2000). Value-added indicators: A powerful tool for evaluating science and mathematics programs and policies (NISE Brief 3, No. 3). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Center for Improving Science Education.
36.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2002).
37.
Porter, A.C., & Smithson, J.L. (2002, April). Alignment of assessments, standards, and instruction using curriculum indicator data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
38.
Resnick, L.B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J.B., & Vranek, J.L. (2003). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing . Educational Assessment, 9, 1-27.
39.
Roach, A.T., & Elliott, S.N. (2006). Influence of access to the general education curriculum on the alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 181-194.
40.
Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197-227.
41.
Roderick, M., Jacob, B.A., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333-357.
42.
Schulte, A.C., Villwock, D.N., Whichard, S.M., & Stallings, C.F. (2001). High stakes testing and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five-year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 487-506.
43.
Smith, M.L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 10(4), 7-11.
44.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30(3), 407-419.
45.
Towles-Reeves, E., & Kleinert, H. (2006). The impact of one state's alternate assessment upon instruction and IEP development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 31-39.
46.
Webb, N.L. (2002, April). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association , New Orleans, LA.
47.
Winfield, L.F. (1990). School competency testing reforms and student achievement: Exploring a national perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 157-173.
48.
Yeh, S. (2006). Can rapid assessment moderate the consequences of high-stakes testing? Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 91-112.
49.
Yoon, B., & Resnick, L. (1998). Instructional validity, opportunity to learn, and equity: New standards examinations for the California Mathematics Renaissance (CSE Technical Report 484). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
