Test Providers: Winners and Losers
by
deanmillot@mac.com
on Thu 26 Jul 2007 02:00 AM EDT |
Permanent Link
|
Cosmos
By
now most observers of education reform understand that most states
built their accountability regimes on the idea of average student
performance, in which strong students can balance out underperformers.
This perpetuates the soft bigotry of low expectations or at least a
distribution of education resources that disadvantages the
disadvantaged. NCLB requires states, districts and schools to
demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress towards the goal of 100% student
proficiency in key subject by 201, forcing a reallocation to the
students who really need it. The first approach was supported by exams
like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), developed in 1935 and now
distributed by Riverside Publishers, a part of the Houghton Mifflin Riverdeep Group.
Educators aren’t
exactly overjoyed by NCLB, but two accountability regimes and two
different tests are loved even less. Most state policymakers don’t want
to drop the system they built. Rob Chaney of The Missoulian
reports that Montana has decided to move towards the fed's system,
focus on the new MontCAS (Montana Comprehensive Assessment System)
developed by nonprofit Measured Progress, and drop ITBS.
“The
MontCAS test that is required by NCLB is such a high-stakes test,
schools are really having to focus on that,” Superintendent of Public
Instruction Linda McCulloch said Tuesday. “We haven't heard from folks
who wanted to keep the tests, but we have heard a lot that we're
over-tested.”
One interesting
business question revolves around the fact that norm-referenced tests
like the ITBS are practically commodities. As such, they fit nicely
into the marketing, sales and distribution strengths of the "old"
education industry's large publishers. Criterion-based tests are
purpose-built for a set of learning standards, and the state of that
art isn’t quite a commodity. "New industry"
providers like Measured Progress, with a corporate culture based on
technical capacity, research and development have a competitive
advantage. On the other hand, they are still building experience in
administration at scale. The future would seem to involve
co-opetition rather than pure competition, and we’ll have to see how it
plays out.