The Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment, October 2001
The National Education Association and four other mainstream public-school groups have just issued this 32-page document, based on the deliberations of something called "The Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment." Emeritus UCLA professor (and testing critic) James Popham chaired it, joined by such prominent education Panglosses as David Berliner. The group settled on nine "requirements for states to design tests that promote better teaching and learning." These include several that are unobjectionable (e.g. making sure that state academic standards are clear, disaggregating the reporting of test results). Some are worthy if expensive (e.g. providing "accommodations and alternative methods of assessment...for students who need them"). Some are predictable (e.g. more professional development for teachers) and some dilatory (e.g. giving test developers three years to produce new statewide tests). One recommendation, though, could make trouble for standards-based education reform. It asks states to "prioritize" their content standards and focus their testing only on those with high priority. Besides using that awful word "prioritize", this is not a very wise recommendation. Sure, some states have excessively broad and ambitious academic standards. But to pick and choose among those standards on grounds that some are truly important while others are expendable, is, in effect, to shrink the universe of skills and knowledge that states actually want their children to acquire - and that they're going to hold schools accountable for teaching. This seems not very different from making the tests easier - by making them cover less ground, or having only some of the ground "count." If you'd like a copy, surf to http://www.nmsa.org/ and follow the prompts under the second item there ("Smarter Testing - New Guide for States").
