A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for Accountability Testing

By Edward H. Haertel, J. Herman. 2005

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b8f63a690ca35ee01b61e024f7a3f20daa4b675

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. E. Hochberg
2. Dylan Wiliam *
3. K. Leithwood
4. J. Looney
5. V. Greaney
6. M. Fares Hout
7. Gene V. Glass
8. S. Nichols

In Information Systems and Management

1. E. Hochberg
2. Dylan Wiliam *
3. K. Leithwood
4. J. Looney
5. V. Greaney
6. M. Fares Hout
7. Gene V. Glass
8. S. Nichols

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. K. Leithwood
2. J. Looney
3. V. Greaney
4. M. Fares Hout
5. Gene V. Glass
6. Dylan Wiliam *
7. S. Nichols
8. T. Kellaghan

Citations in the corpus

• Standardized Testing and School Accountability (2010, background): “Haertel and Herman (2005) provided a brief overview of the last century of accountability testing in the United States.”
• Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education (2011, background): “Researchers have proposed a number of elements that are likely to be needed for a test-based accountability system to work effectively in the overall education system (see, e.g., Baker and Linn, 2003; Feuer, 2008; Fuhrman, 2004; Haertel and Herman, 2005; O’Day, 2004).”
• Leading Data Use in Schools: Organizational Conditions and Practices at the School and District Levels (2010, background): “…influences student learning (Leithwood et al., forthcoming), this study was prompted by the unqualified encouragement embedded in much current educational policy for district and school leaders, along with teachers, to become more datainformed in their decision making (Herman & Haertel, 2005).”
• High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Updated Analyses with NAEP Data. (2012, methodology): “…Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002, its use as a lever for school change preceded NCLB. Tests have been used to distribute rewards and sanctions to teachers in urban schools since the mid 1800s (Tyack, 1974) and for most schools throughout the United States since at least the 1970s (Haertel & Herman, 2005).”
• Using the Results of a National Assessment of Educational Achievement (2009, background): “«Íå ñëåäóåò îæèäàòü, ÷òî ó÷àùèåñÿ äîñòèãíóò äîëæíîãî óðîâíÿ ìàñòåðñòâà â ðåçóëüòàòàõ îáó÷åíèÿ äî òåõ ïîð, ïîêà ñîäåðæàíèå îáó÷åíèÿ è ó÷åáíûé ïðîöåññ â êëàññå íå áóäóò â ñîñòîÿíèè õîðîøî ïîäãîòîâèòü èõ ê ýòîìó» (Haertel and Herman, 2005: 21).”
• Assessment and Innovation in Education (2009, background): “If systems are poorly aligned, it is impossible for schools and teachers to draw valid conclusions about student performance, or to adapt teaching to better meet identified needs – the central goal of Standards Based Assessment systems (Linn, 2001, 2005; Haertel and Herman, 2005).”
• Professional Development in the Accountability Context: Building Capacity to Achieve Standards (2010, background): “Among some teachers and schools, one response to general accountability pressures is to narrow the breadth of the enacted curriculum, so that, rather than being driven by the full extent of state content standards, classroom teaching and learning become focused primarily on the subset of standards t”