Report from President Hall
The following are some bits and pieces of information, which may be of interest.
We had budgeted (last year) funds for Peter Wolmut to attend test APA conference but found a way to get more for our money. Valeria Ford represented us at APA which was held in her home city of Washington, D.C. Her report will be included in a future newsletter.
I have submitted a proposal for inclusion in the ASA conference which is scheduled for New Orleans in February. My purpose is to establish a closer relationship between ourselves and school administrators. If the proposal is accepted, I will use the funds originally earmarked for Peter’s trip to APA.
By a decision of our board, NATD will be a sponsoring organization for the Annual Texas Testing Conference. This involves only the use of our name.
Speaking of our name, it will be listed in the next edition of the Encyclopedia of Associations.
We now have tax exempt status through 1989.
You will be receiving your copy of Symposia Papers, Second Edition soon. It is a good one. Pete has worked hard!
I have about finished the content of our brochure, but haven’t thought of an attractive format. Suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
The Yearbook is making very slow progress. One difficulty is a dearth of information. I received about a 25% return rate on the survey. (sounds pretty normal, doesn’t it?) I am enclosing a second copy of the survey and hope that those of you who have not responded will do so.
Our relations with NCME continue to be good. Last year they helped
with the publication of our Symposia Papers. This year, we will not
need that help. (Isn’t it a nice feeling?) We have provided
NCME with our membership list and complimentary copies of Symposia Papers
to their board. They assisted us with some free advertising last
year and are considering the same this year. I continue to encourage
our members to be a part of NCME as well as NATD. It seems
to me that membership in both organizations is important to individuals
in our field.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CALL FOR NOMIANTIONS
NCME Award for the Best Application of Educational Measurement Technology
The National Council on Measurement in Education has established three categories of awards:
Category 1. Award for an outstanding dissemination of educational measurement concepts to the public.
Category 2. Award for an outstanding example of the application of educational measurement technology to a specific problem.
Category 3. Award for an outstanding technical contribution to the field of educational measurement.
This year (1986-87) an award will be made only in Category 2. In subsequent years,awards will be made in other categories.
Examples of application problem areas include, but are not limited to, selection or classification of students, measuring a hard-to-measure trait, evaluating an educational program or product, and integrating testing and learning. Selection criteria are quality and innovativeness of the application effort or the positive impact of the application on practice.
To be eligible for this award, the application must have occurred initially during 1984, 1985, or 1986. One may either nominate their own application work or, with permission, someone else’s. Those responsible for the application need not be members of NCME. To be considered for the award, four copies of a 3-5 page statement describing the technology, application area, and products or results of the effort should be sent to the Awards Committee Chair. Later, finalists may be requested to submit additional information.
The deadline for submission is January 30, 1987. The award will be presented at the NCME annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Award nomination forms are available from the Chair,
Dr. Howard Stoker
UT, Memphis
8 South Dunlap
Memphis, TN 38163
UPDATES
A National Test – Definitely On It’s Way!
By Grace Iverson
The March, 1986 NATD Newsletter featured results of a survey of member opinions regarding the development of a national test to be used for state-by-state comparisons. The survey was conducted by Bob Ziomek. Bob added what he called “Unsolicited But Nevertheless Provocative and Pessimistic” comments. You’ll remember that the Council of Chiefs State School Officers (CCSSO) in November, 1984 adopted a plan for developing a system of educational indicators, one piece of which is student achievement. This adoption was in reaction to the famous “wall chart” disseminated by, then, Secretary of Education Bell.
O recently attended a meeting of the Committee on Evaluation and Information Systems (CEIS) which is an advisory committee to CCSSO. While the memberships is generally made up of state department of education people, some local school district persons have been invited to participate in various CEIS, sub-committees. That’s how I got there. At the September meeting, Ramsey Seldon, Director of the CCSSO’s State Education Assessment Center, brought the committee members up to date on what he termed the “Preliminary Design” for state-by-state student achievement testing.
Director Seldon has used officials from the various state-level departments of eduacational as one group of advisors for planning purposes. That seems natural given that this project is one sponsored by the Chiefs. However, there appeared to be little formal solicitation of advice from local school district staff. When asked about this (guess who asked?), Dr. Seldon said he welcomed hearing from local school district-persons on the plans as they progress. Since there has been a joint committee appointed by NATD and the directors of Research and Evaluation (DRE) to monitor the direction of national testing, we can except that communication will open up between school districts and the Assessment Center.
Several issues regarding test-development are being addressed. The plans call for cyclical testing in reading, mathematics, science, social studies and English at elementary, intermediate, and high school levels. However, how the specification of the subject matter to be tested will be done is unresolved. Should the curriculums/objectives of each state be reviewed and the areas common to all be tested? Or should states identify priority curriculum areas and objectives whether or not they are included in each state’s curriculum? The plans lean toward having a test that measures the curriculum area that states feel should be in place.
Another issue involves the frequency with which testing should be conducted. At present the assessment center is looking at test design that would … “assess reading, writing, English and mathematics alternating every other year, and to assess science and social studies every four years in alternation with mathematics.”
Issues involving the type of score to be reported also are being discussed. Here, an attempt will be made to report scores ….”in simple, global format for performance in each subject at each grade level."
The quotes are taken from a draft document disseminated to CEIS members titled, Preliminary Design: State by State Assessment of Student Achievement.
If you have some thoughts on this topic you want to share with the joint
DRE/NATD committee, send them to -- Bob Ziomek
Brownsville ISD
954 Ease Madison Street Route #2
Brownsville, TX 78520
If you want to hear more of the background on this issue: write to –
Ramsey Seldon, Director
Council of Chief State School Officers
State Educators Assessment Center
400 North Capitol Street – Suite 379
Washington, D.C. 2001
Ask for the Position Paper and Recommendations for Action on Evaluation and Assessment In the United States and for any updated documents he has on the design for state by state assessment of student achievement.
A final Note of Irony. In sitting in a room populated by state department of education persons, it was humorous to hear them voice their concerns about national testing and the pressure it will bring to state departments of education. The arguments were similar to those we, as local school district persons, use when we futilely attempt to stop the tide of more and more state required testing. Does any of the following sound familiar?
1. Unfair state comparisons will be made.
2. There is already too much testing going on.
3. We’ll soon have to adhere to a national curriculum in order to “look good”.
4. It will be difficult to draw a state-by-state sample that can adequately represent a given state.
Sound familiar? Chuckle? Chuckle!
1987 NATD Programs
Vice President Mike Stozeski reports that 12 NATD sponsored proposals
for either paper or symposia were submitted to the National Council of
Measurement in Education (NCME) for the 1987 annual meeting. Acceptance/rejection
notices are due any time. Watch for the good news in the next newsletter!
Constitution Amended
At the annual meeting a series of amendments to the constitution were
made. Attached is a copy of the constitution which reflects those
changes.
RESOURCES
Have you seen the recent publication developed by our colleagues in Detroit? Testing Tune-Up, A guide To Peak Performance has test-taking skills handouts and practice exercises for use with all students grades 1-12. The materials are provided in a 3 hole punch format and are printed so those overlays can be easily made for group presentations. The materials are easy to duplicate as well. To order a set or set(s) write:
Detroit Public Schools
Evaluation and Testing Program
Room 108, Schools Center Annex
5035 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48202
TREASURER’S REPORT
Treasurer Jean Jolly reports that new members come in daily and former
members are renewing their memberships. That information indicates
NATD as in good health. Jean also asks that members be reminded that
yearly dues go from the original date a member paid. Renewal notices,
then, go out at various times during the year. In case you haven’t
renewed, a form is below.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATD YEARBOOK
Name _______________________ Title __________________________________
Address ______________________________ Phone _________________________
My responsibilities include:
I am interested in knowing more about the following testing issues:
I am concerned (as in worried) about the following testing issues:
I have expertise (that I am willing to share) in the following areas:
RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL BE USED IN SUMMARY TABLES
ONLY AND WILL NOT APPEAR UNDER YOUR NAME
The biggest benefit (besides the banquets) that I realize from NATD
is:
Norm reference tests used by my district:
At grades:
Consequences for students:
Norm reference test used for state assessment:
At grades:
Consequences for students:
Criterion referenced tests used by my district:
At grades:
Consequences for students:
Criterion referenced test used for state assessment:
At grades:
Consequences for students:
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Janie Hall
Standardized Test Specialist
Oklahoma City Public Schools
Planning, Research and Evaluation Department
900 North Klein
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
Return to NATD Publications Page