SAN FRANCISCO HIGHLIGHTS
The NATD program for 1986 is one that members won’t want to miss. Janie Hall (Oklahoma City, OK) reports on the following events:
Thursday, April 17, 8:15-10:15 a.m. – A symposium – Taming the Rasch
Tiger: Using Item Rsponse Theory in Practical Educational Measurement
Organizer/Moderator: Dean Forbes, Portland, OR Public Schools
Friday, April 18 – NCME breakfast
Saturday, April 19, 8:00 a.m. – NATD breakfast
Hosts: Science Research Associates, Inc.
Saturday, April 19, 10:35 a.m. – 12:05 p.m. – NATD Business Meeting
Chair: President Peter Womult, Moltnomah Educational Service District,
Portland, OR
Saturday, April 19, 12:25 – 1:55 p.m. – A symposium – Legitimate Ways
to Prepare Students for Testing
Organizer: Paul Brown, Indianapolis, IN Public Schools
Moderator: Gynn Ligon, Austin, TX Independent School District
Other events, times to be announced:
Banquet hosted by Riverside Publishing Company
1985-86 Board Meeting
1986-87 Board Meeting
In addition to the events noted above, James DeGracie (Mesa, AZ) has
invited NATD members to share testing concerns with the Directors of Research
and Evaluation (DRE) group that meets annually prior to AERA. Jim
writes that he has set aside the morning of Wednesday, April 16th for a
joint meeting of NATD and DRE members to discuss issues on testing.
The meeting will be held at:
8:30 a.m.
Wednesday, April 16
Meridian Hotel
3rd and Market
Gamay Room
Third Level
Jim asks that any NATD members who wish to submit critical issues on testing for the agenda, write him at : 549 North Stapley Drive, Mesa AZ 85203.
NATD 1986-87 SLATE OF OFFICERS ANNOUNCED
Nominating Committee Chair, Paul Brown (Indianapolis, IN) announced that the slate of officers for NATD leadership during 86-87 has been developed. A ballot is enclosed with this newsletter. Please exercise one of your rights of membership and vote for those persons you feel can best lead NATD.
TREASURER’S REPORT
FORM ROGER BAGLIN
Roger Baglin (Rochester, NY) reports a February membership of 114 members. A the 1986 Board Meeting, Roger will be presenting the following 1986-87 budget for membership consideration.
Proposed 1986-87 NATD Budget
REVENUE
Dues (100 members @ 20) $2,000
Gifts/Donations 1,000
Current cash balance
355
TOTAL REVENUES
$3,355
EXPENDITURES
Travel Expenses 855
Publication expenses 855
Telephone expenses 500
Postage 500
Supplies 145
$2,855
RESERVES
Expected carry-over/contingency 500
TOTAL RESERVES
500
TOTAL EXPENDITURES PLUS RESERVES $3,355
NATD MEMBER OPINIONS ON A NATIONAL TEST AND STAE BY STATE COMPARISONS
From:
Robert Ziomek (Brownsville, TX)
At the annual business meeting of the National Association of Test Directors, held in conjunction with the 1985 NCME/AERA conference in Chicago, it was voted by members present to poll the current membership regarding their concerns and reactions relative to a recent vote taken by the Council of Chief State School Officers endorsing a national test to be used for state-by-state comparisons. The intention of the executive board of NATD, at the time the decision was made to poll the membership, was to inform the Chief State School Officers (if the survey results so warranted) of our concerns regarding such an undertaking.
If you have keeping up with the latest developments relative to this issue, you already know that the Chiefs voted in early November, 1985, to establish their own assessment center headed by Ramsey Seldon. (See Education Week, Vol. 5, No. 13, 27th of November, 1985). As a result of the Chief’s board have obviously been preempted, consequently necessitating a change in direction which will be discussed at the upcoming business meeting at AERA.
Notwithstanding, the results of the survey are presented here for perusal. One hundred seventy (170) surveys were mailed and eighty-four (84) were returned of which 82 were completed, representing a useable return rate of 48 percent.
The survey results follow with some editorial comment from the surveyor.
1. Do you favor the administration of a national exam?
Yes 7 (8.5%) No 75 (91.5%)
2. If you answered Yes to Question 1, please state specifically your
reason (s)
supporting a national examination.
Reasons given in support of a natinonal examination:
Administration of a national exam would be more reasonable than current comparisons made on the basis of the SAT and ACT tests.
Administration of a national exam would provide the public with needed information and facilitate an increase in funding by states and federal government for those states exhibiting poor performance.
3. If you answered No to question 1, please state specifically your reason(s) for not supporting a national examination.
Major reasons for not supporting a national exam for state comparison purposes:
National exam would eventually lead to a national curriculum with the potential of eroding or replacing LEA or SEA curricula.
National exam could potentially destroy or sidetrack current or anticipated SEA and LEA testing programs designed to provide specific information unique to those settings.
Education is a responsibility of the states and LEAs ,as it should be. Establishing a national exam for comparing state and local efforts would only serve to turn the best efforts of many into a political circus and a platform for a variety of special interest groups.
Because state and local curricula very scope, sequence, emphasis et., a national exam would be too “generic” to highlight specific strengths and too”basic” to reveal critical weaknesses.
A national exam would be too costly in terms of resources and wouldn’t provide any new information that is not already evident to districts.
Too many factors influence educational outcomes which are not adequately reflected in test results. A single outcome measure, such as a national exam, would generate many unwarranted interpretations and comparisons as well as invite the blatant misuse of results by naïve consumers of this information.
4. Please specify an alternative suggestion to the national exam proposal if you feel a viable option exists.
Of those responding to Question 4, fifty-four (54) did not respond or specifically indicated no viable options exists (non-responses were taken to mean no option exists). The remaining responses to this question fell into three categories: 1) SEAs and/or LEAs should consider their own testing priorities; 2) existing NAEP activities should be reinforced to accommodate comparisons; 3) national norms should be established by equating major standardized tests comparable to the old Anchor Study.
5. If the executive leadership of NCME and Division D and H, of AERA, are unwilling to enter into a collaborative responded to the issue of a national exam, should NATD pursue this matter on its own?
Yes 70 (85.4%) No 7 (8.5%) No Response 5 (6.1%)
An Unsolicited But Nevertheless Provocative and Pessimistic Postscript form Surveyor Ziomek:
Isn’t it ironic that after only one short year the Council of chief State School Officers has overwhelmingly agreed to initiate the development of a national examination to facilitate state-by-state comparisons and assessment of students’ educational progress. And the chiefs are serious! They have already established the own assessment center, appointed a director, and even developed indicators in the areas of educational outcomes, educational context, and educational policies and practices on which to base cross-state comparisons.
Therein lies the irony. Well, once again, if you have been keeping
up with the latest pronouncements emanating from the White House, the new
deficit reduction law (Gramm-rudman) will have a dramatic adverse affect
on education, reflecting President Reagan’s philosophy to increase the
states’ responsibilities of providing basic services (Education Week, December
18, 1985), to include prioritizing funding in education. It is very
easy to please most of the people most of the time when you have the “bucks”
to spread around, especially when those dollars are coming from “good ole
Uncle Sam”. It is another matter when our Uncle gets tight and says
to you, “you’ll be gettingless,” and to make matters worse, “it will be
up to you to decide on how to spend it.” Many a politician’s fate,
including superintendents’, has been decided on such issues.
So where does this lead us – a national exam to assess the educational pulse of our nation? No one want to be ranked last, unless of course our state and federal legislators see cause to increase funding; likewise, no one will object to being ranked “Numero Uno” as long as they can continue to receive the monies to keep them or even more money to really make them shine! State officials supporting the plan say “the use of the indicators, including achievement tests, would help states get goals, evaluate their progress, and document the effects of the reform movement” (Education Week, November 27, 1985, p.14). That statement, coming from those Chief State School Officers supporting the so called plan, does not make sense. Since when did the states need a national exam to detail state specific goals in education, and evaluate their reform movements? What are state officials currently doing with the wealth of test information being accumulate by local LEA’s, not to mention all the other state date requirements currently inundating school districts?
The reason, MONEY’ the motive, POLITICAL; the modus operandi, THE TEST; the outcome, !?#*!!*?.
Return to NATD Publications Page