Abstract
In the USA, federal engagement in educational policy-making had been limited until the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002. This act included a call for the establishment of rigorous standards in certain “core” subjects as a means to promote excellence in education and to make schools accountable for the academic performance of their students. With the passing of NCLB, funding for state and local education in the federal budget was consolidated and made contingent upon the states adopting the framework of NCLB. The emphasis on accountability resulted in “test frenzy” (Popham, 2006a, Educational Leadership, 64(2), 90–91) and the constraining of pedagogical space for teachers to implement practices that view assessment as a tool for enhancing student learning. This chapter explores and explains the constraints imposed upon many US schools and teachers and presents a snapshot of contemporary assessment practices, in particular those that are associated with NCLB. It then investigates some practices in the spirit of assessment for learning that have managed to survive or emerge as educators at the state and local level struggle to reconcile the powerful influences of high-stakes testing with the more fundamental mandate to promote learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249–261.
Brookhart, S. M. (1999). Teaching about communicating assessment results and grading. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 6–13.
Carnoy, M. (2005). Have state accountability and high-stakes tests influenced student progression rates in high school? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 19–31.
Cromey, A., & Hanson, M. (2000). An exploratory analysis of school-based student assessment systems. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (ERIC document).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
Fägerlind, I., & Saha, L. J. (1989). Education and national development: A comparative perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & Le Floch, K. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the fifty states. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Number RR-046. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., & Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Isaacs, T. (2001). Entry to university in the United States: The role of SAT and advanced placement in a competitive sector. Assessment in Education, 8(3), 391–406.
Jacob, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121.
Lawrence, I., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T., & Jackson, C. A. (2002). A historical perspective on the SAT: 1926–2001. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/rr20027_11439.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2010.
Marchant, G. J., & Paulson, S. E. (2005). The relationship of high school graduation exams to graduation rates and SAT scores. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(6), 1–15.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing standards-based districts, schools, and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McMunn, N., McCloskey, W., & Butler, S. (2004). Building teacher capacity in classroom assessment to improve student learning. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(4), 25–48.
Mitchell, K. (1997). What happens when school reform and accountability testing meet? Theory into Practice, 36(4), 262–268.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.
National Research Council. (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nebraska Department of Education. (1999). School-based Teacher-led Assessment & Reporting System: A planning guide for Nebraska schools. http://www.nde.state.ne.us/. Accessed 12 November 2006.
Nelson, C. (2007). Accountability: The commodification of the examined life. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(6), 22–27.
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). High stakes testing and student achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy Research Unit. http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-105-EPRU.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2006.
Olson, L. (2005). Benchmark assessments offer regular achievement. Education Week, 25(13), 13–14.
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.
Popham., W. J. (2006a). Diagnostic assessments: A measurement mirage? Educational Leadership, 64(2), 90–91.
Popham, W. J. (2006b). Phony formative assessments: Buyer beware!. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 86–87.
Roschewski, P., Isernhagen, J., & Dappen, L. (2006). Nebraska STARS: Achieving results. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 433–437.
Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Sharkey, N. S., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Tough choices in designing a formative assessment system. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 572–588.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
Shurtleff, D. S., & Loredo, J. (2008). Beyond No Child Left Behind: Value-added assessment of student progress. National Center for Policy Analysis. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/11781.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2010.
Sirotnik, K. (2002). Promoting responsible accountability in schools and education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), pp. 662–674.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.
Toch, T. (2006). Turmoil in the testing industry. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 53–57.
US Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. http://ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2010.
US Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program: Executive summary. US Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2010.
Vermont Department of Education, Standards & Assessment. (2006). Core principles of high quality local assessment systems. http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/pgm_curriculum/local_assessment/core_principles_06.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2006.
Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Flaitz, J. (2011). Assessment for Learning: US Perspectives. In: Berry, R., Adamson, B. (eds) Assessment Reform in Education. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0729-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0729-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0728-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0729-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)