Download Free The Validity Of Gains In Scores On The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System Kiris Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Validity Of Gains In Scores On The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System Kiris and write the review.

In recent years, in an effort to avoid the degradation of instruction and inflation of test scores that often occurred when educators were held accountable for scores on multiple-choice tests, policymakers have experimented with accountability systems based on performance assessments. The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), which rewarded or sanctioned schools largely on the basis of changes in scores on a complex, partially performance-based assessment, was an archetype of this wave of reform. It is not a given, however, that performance assessment can avoid the inflation of scores that arises when teachers and students focus too narrowly on the content of the assessment used for accountability rather than focusing on the broad domains of achievement the assessment is intended to measure. Accordingly, this study evaluated the extent to which the large performance gains shown on KIRIS represented real improvements in student learning rather than inflation of scores. External evidence of validity--that is, comparisons to other test data--suggests that KIRIS gains were substantially inflated. Even though KIRIS was designed partially to reflect the frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), large KIRIS gains in fourth-grade reading from 1992 to 1994 had no echo in NAEP scores. Large KIRIS gains in mathematics from 1992 to 1994 in the fourth and eighth grades did have some echo in NAEP scores, but Kentucky's NAEP gains were roughly one-fourth as large as the KIRIS gains and were typical of gains shown in other states. The large gains high-school students showed on KIRIS in mathematics and reading were not reflected in their scores on the American College Testing (ACT) college-admissions tests. KIRIS science gains were accompanied by ACT gains only one-fifth as large. Internal evidence of validity--that is, evidence based on patterns within the KIRIS data themselves--was more ambiguous but also provided some warning of likely inflation, particularly in mathematics. For example, schools that showed large gains on KIRIS also tended to show larger than average discrepancies in performance between new and reused test items, suggesting that teachers had coached students narrowly on the content of previous tests. The findings of this study indicate that inflation of scores remains a risk in assessment-based accountability systems even when they rely on test formats other than multiple choice. There is a clear need to evaluate the results and effects of assessment-based accountability systems, and better methods for evaluating the validity of gains need to be developed.
In recent years, in an effort to avoid the degradation of instruction and inflation of test scores that often occurred when educators were held accountable for scores on multiple-choice tests, policymakers have experimented with accountability systems based on performance assessments. The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), which rewarded or sanctioned schools largely on the basis of changes in scores on a complex, partially performance-based assessment, was an archetype of this wave of reform. It is not a given, however, that performance assessment can avoid the inflation of scores that arises when teachers and students focus too narrowly on the content of the assessment used for accountability rather than focusing on the broad domains of achievement the assessment is intended to measure. Accordingly, this study evaluated the extent to which the large performance gains shown on KIRIS represented real improvements in student learning rather than inflation of scores. External evidence of validity--that is, comparisons to other test data--suggests that KIRIS gains were substantially inflated. Even though KIRIS was designed partially to reflect the frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), large KIRIS gains in fourth-grade reading from 1992 to 1994 had no echo in NAEP scores. Large KIRIS gains in mathematics from 1992 to 1994 in the fourth and eighth grades did have some echo in NAEP scores, but Kentucky's NAEP gains were roughly one-fourth as large as the KIRIS gains and were typical of gains shown in other states. The large gains high-school students showed on KIRIS in mathematics and reading were not reflected in their scores on the American College Testing (ACT) college-admissions tests. KIRIS science gains were accompanied by ACT gains only one-fifth as large. Internal evidence of validity--that is, evidence based on patterns within the KIRIS data themselves--was more ambiguous but also provided some warning of likely inflation, particularly in mathematics. For example, schools that showed large gains on KIRIS also tended to show larger than average discrepancies in performance between new and reused test items, suggesting that teachers had coached students narrowly on the content of previous tests. The findings of this study indicate that inflation of scores remains a risk in assessment-based accountability systems even when they rely on test formats other than multiple choice. There is a clear need to evaluate the results and effects of assessment-based accountability systems, and better methods for evaluating the validity of gains need to be developed.
As part of a larger study of education reform in Kentucky, RAND staff surveyed teachers and principals across Kentucky to see how KIRIS is affecting their work, student performance, instruction, assessment, and school management.
In recent years, in an effort to avoid the degradation of instruction and inflation of test scores that often occurred when educators were held accountable for scores on multiple-choice tests, policymakers have experimented with accountability systems based on performance assessments. The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), which rewarded or sanctioned schools largely on the basis of changes in scores on a complex, partially performance-based assessment, was an archetype of this wave of reform. It is not a given, however, that performance assessment can avoid the inflation of scores that arises when teachers and students focus too narrowly on the content of the assessment used for accountability rather than focusing on the broad domains of achievement the assessment is intended to measure. Accordingly, this study evaluated the extent to which the large performance gains shown on KIRIS represented real improvements in student learning rather than inflation of scores. External evidence of validity--that is, comparisons to other test data--suggests that KIRIS gains were substantially inflated. Even though KIRIS was designed partially to reflect the frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), large KIRIS gains in fourth-grade reading from 1992 to 1994 had no echo in NAEP scores. Large KIRIS gains in mathematics from 1992 to 1994 in the fourth and eighth grades did have some echo in NAEP scores, but Kentucky's NAEP gains were roughly one-fourth as large as the KIRIS gains and were typical of gains shown in other states. The large gains high-school students showed on KIRIS in mathematics and reading were not reflected in their scores on the American College Testing (ACT) college-admissions tests. KIRIS science gains were accompanied by ACT gains only one-fifth as large. Internal evidence of validity--that is, evidence based on patterns within the KIRIS data themselves--was more ambiguous but also provided some warning of likely inflation, particularly in mathematics. For example, schools that showed large gains on KIRIS also tended to show larger than average discrepancies in performance between new and reused test items, suggesting that teachers had coached students narrowly on the content of previous tests. The findings of this study indicate that inflation of scores remains a risk in assessment-based accountability systems even when they rely on test formats other than multiple choice. There is a clear need to evaluate the results and effects of assessment-based accountability systems, and better methods for evaluating the validity of gains need to be developed.
This is an up-to-date revision of the classic text first published in 1983. It includes a historical perspective on the growth of evaluation theory and practice and two comparative analyses of the various alternative perspectives on evaluation. It also includes articles representing the major schools of thought about evaluation written by the leaders who have developed these schools and models. The final section describes and discusses the Standards for Program Evaluation and the reformation of program evaluation.
In response to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Systems for State Science Assessment explores the ideas and tools that are needed to assess science learning at the state level. This book provides a detailed examination of K-12 science assessment: looking specifically at what should be measured and how to measure it. Along with reading and mathematics, the testing of science is a key component of NCLBâ€"it is part of the national effort to establish challenging academic content standards and develop the tools to measure student progress toward higher achievement. The book will be a critical resource for states that are designing and implementing science assessments to meet the 2007-2008 requirements of NCLB. In addition to offering important information for states, Systems for State Science Assessment provides policy makers, local schools, teachers, scientists, and parents with a broad view of the role of testing and assessment in science education.
In recent decades testing has become a much more visible and high-stakes accountability mechanism that is now seen as a powerful tool that can be used to drive school improvement. The purpose of this book is to identify and analyze the key issues associated with test-based educational accountability and to chart the future of educational accountability research. Chapter contributions are intended to be forward looking rather than a compendium of what has happened in the past. The book provides an accessible discussion of issues such as validity, test equating, growth modeling, fairness for special populations, causal inferences, and misuses of accountability data.
How does education affect economic and social outcomes, and how can it inform public policy?Volume 3 of the Handbooks in the Economics of Education uses newly available high quality data from around the world to address these and other core questions. With the help of new methodological approaches, contributors cover econometric methods and international test score data. They examine the determinants of educational outcomes and issues surrounding teacher salaries and licensure. And reflecting government demands for more evidence-based policies, they take new looks at institutional feaures of school systems. Volume editors Eric A. Hanushek (Stanford), Stephen Machin (University College London) and Ludger Woessmann (Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich) draw clear lines between newly emerging research on the economics of education and prior work. In conjunction with Volume 4, they measure our current understanding of educational acquisition and its economic and social effects. - Uses rich data to study issues of high contemporary policy relevance - Demonstrates how education serves as an important determinant of economic and social outcomes - Benefits from the globalization of research in the economics of education