|
Education Writers Association Casts Its Narrowing Gaze on Boston, May 1-3, April 2016
Fordham Institute's Pretend Research, Pioneer Institute report [download], February 2016
The Fordham Institute has long been at work on a study of the relative quality of tests produced by the two Common Core-aligned and federally funded consortia (PARCC and SBAC), ACT (Aspire), and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MCAS). What Fordham has produced is only in the most superficial way an actual analysis. In fact, it reads more like propaganda and lacks the basic elements of objective research.
It takes only a little digging under the surface to reveal pervasive conflicts of interest, a one-sided sourcing of evidence, and a research design so slanted it cannot stand against any scrutiny. In developing their supposedly analytic comparisons of PARCC, SBAC, Aspire and MCAS, the authors do not employ standard test evaluation criteria, organizations, or reviewers. Instead, they employ criteria developed by the Common Core co-copyright holder, organizations paid handsomely in the past by Common Core's funders, and predictable reviewers who have worked for them before. The authors also fill the report with the typical vocabulary and syntax of Common Core advertising: positive-sounding adjectives and adverbs are attached to everything Common Core, and negative-sounding adjectives and adverbs are attached to the alternatives.
No reader should take the report seriously; those who produced the report did not. Fordham Institute used to do serious work; in the area of assessments and standards, sadly, that is no longer the case.
Fordham Report Predictable, Conflicted, November 2015
Setting Academic Performance Standards: MCAS vs. PARCC, November 2015
How PARCC's False Rigor Stunts the Academic Growth of All Students, Pioneer Institute report [download] (written with Mark McQuillan and Sandra Stotsky), October 2015.
...compares PARCC, which is based on Common Core's K-12 English and math standards, to pre-Common Core MCAS reading and writing tests. Among its many findings, the study demonstrates that PARCC fails to meet the accountability provisions set forth in the state's Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Education in order to qualify for Race to the Top funding in 2010.
The pre-Common Core MCAS tests were chosen in part because MCAS is now based on Common Core standards, not the state's pre-2011 standards. Pre-Common Core MCAS tests were also chosen because of the dumbing down of 10th grade MCAS tests. What was at the very least a failure by the state to maintain the academic rigor of 10th grade MCAS tests is one reason why the authors recommend that MCAS 2.0 be developed by an entity independent of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The authors also dispute claims that PARCC could simultaneously determine whether students are academically eligible for a high school diploma and ensure college readiness. High school is radically different than college, and the academic demands of various post-secondary programs vary dramatically. Our international competitors use different tests for high school graduation and entrance to post-secondary education.
Supporters also claim PARCC does a better job of testing "higher-order thinking." In fact, its new types of test items are not research-based and not very good. They are often difficult to navigate and what passes for testing higher-order thinking are simply multi-step problems.
At the root of PARCC's weaknesses are the Common Core standards to which they are tied. The authors call on the Commonwealth to phase out Common Core and PARCC, and to base a revised MCAS on Massachusetts' pre-Common Core curriculum frameworks, updated by pertinent new research.
The Revenge of K-12: How Common Core and the new SAT lower college standards in the U.S., Pioneer Institute report [download] (written with R. James Milgram), September 2014.
It is now clear that the original promise to anchor K-12 education to higher education and backmap the Common Core Mathematics Standards (CCMS) from the upper grades down to the primary grades was empty rhetoric. Higher education has scarcely been involved at all, with the exception of the institutions that agreed to place high school students who pass a Common Core-based high school examination directly into credit-bearing freshman coursework (without
remediation) in return for their states receiving "Race to the Top" grant funds.
Because the CCMS are standards for all public school students in this country, regardless of achievement level, they are low standards, topping out at about the level of a weak Algebra II course. And because this level is to determine "college readiness" as they define it (which is not remotely what our public four year college and universities currently assume it to be), it is apt to mean fewer high school students taking advanced mathematics and science coursework before they go to college, more college freshmen with even less knowledge of mathematics than currently, and more college credit-bearing courses set at an international level of seventh or eighth grade.
However, the greatest harm to higher education may accrue from the alignment of the SAT to Common Core's high school standards, converting the SAT from an adaptable test predictive of college work to an inflexible retrospective test aligned to and locking in a low level of mathematics. This means that future SAT scores will be less informative to college admission counselors than they now are, and that the SAT will lose its role in locating students with high
STEM potential in high schools with weak mathematics and science instruction.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Frequency, Stakes, and Feedback in Student Achievement: A Meta-Regression Evaluation Review, August 2019)
 |
|
|
Background: Test frequency, stakes associated with educational tests, and feedback from test results have been identified in the research literature as relevant factors in student achievement.
Objectives: Summarize the separate and joint contribution to student achievement of these three treatments and their interactions via multivariable meta-analytic techniques using a database of English-language studies spanning a century (1910–2010), comprising 149 studies and 509 effect size estimates.
Research design: Analysis employed robust variance estimation. Considered as potential moderators were hundreds of study features comprising various test designs and test administration, demographic, and source document characteristics.
Subjects: Subjects were students at all levels, from early childhood to adult, mostly from the United States but also eight other countries.
Results: We find a summary effect size of 0.84 for the three treatments collectively. Further analysis suggests benefits accrue to the incremental addition of combinations of testing and feedback or stakes and feedback. Moderator analysis shows higher effect sizes associated with the following study characteristics: more recent year of publication, summative (rather than formative) testing, constructed (rather than selected) item response formats, alignment of subject matter between pre- and posttests, and recognition/recall (rather than core subjects, art, or physical education). Conversely, lower effect sizes are associated with postsecondary students (rather than early childhood–upper secondary), special education population, larger study population, random assignment (rather than another sampling method), use of shadow test as outcome measure, designation of individuals (rather than groups) as units of analysis, and academic (rather than corporate or government) research.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Effect of Testing on Student Achievement, 1910-2010 International Journal of Testing, January 2012)
 |
|
|
This article summarizes research on the effect of testing on student achievement as found in English-language sources, comprising several hundred studies conducted between 1910 and 2010. Among quantitative studies, mean effect sizes range from a moderate d ≈ 0.55 to a fairly large d ≈ 0.88, depending on the way effects are aggregated or effect sizes are adjusted for study artifacts. Testing with feedback produces the strongest positive effect on achievement. Adding stakes or frequency also strongly and positively affects achievement. Survey studies produce effect sizes above 1.0. Ninety-three percent of qualitative studies analyzed also reported positive effects.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to three anonymous reviewers and editor Steve Sireci for their excellent suggestions. Thanks also to individuals who aided the research, including: Jeff Allen; Kurt Burkum; Richard Coley; Lori Dockery; John Hattie; George Johanson; Kathy Lynch; Karen McQuillan; Katie Paul; John Poggio; Terris Raiford; Jacqueline Snider; Gang Wang; and Karen Zimmerman. Furthermore, credit goes to those who conducted research reviews on relevant subtopics (in chronological order): Panlasigui (1928); Ross (1942); Kirkland (1971); Proger & Mann (1973); Jones (1974); Bjork (1975); Peckham & Roe (1977); Wildemuth (1977); Jackson & Battiste (1978); Kulik, Kulik, Bangert-Drowns, & Schwalb (1983-1991); Natriello & Dornbusch (1984); Dawson & Dawson (1985); Levine (1985); Resnick & Resnick (1985); Guskey & Gates (1986); Hembree (1987); Crooks (1988); Dempster (1991); Cameron & Pierce (1994); Adams & Chapman (2002); Locke & Latham (2002); Roediger & Karpicke (2006); J. Lee (2007); and Basol & Johanson (2009).
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correcting Fallacies about Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, December 2008)
 |
|
|
Standardized testing bears the twin burden of controversy and complexity and is difficult for many to understand either dispassionately or technically. In response to this reality, Richard P. Phelps and a team of well-noted measurement specialists describe the current state of public debate about testing across fields, explain and refute the primary criticisms of testing, acknowledge the limitations and undesirable consequences of testing, provide suggestions for improving testing practices, and present a vigorous defense of testing as well as a practical vision for its promise and future.
Those who are charged with translating the science of testing into public information and policy, including administrators, social scientists, test publishers, professors, and journalists who specialize in education and psychology, will find a wealth of valuable information here with which to balance the debate.
Table of Contents:
Foreword, Thomas Oakland
Introduction and Overview
Logical Fallacies Used to Dismiss the Evidence on Intelligence Testing, Linda S. Gottfredson
Psychological Diagnostic Testing: Addressing Challenges in Clinical Applications of Testing, Janet F. Carlson & Kurt F. Geisinger
Educational Achievement Testing: Critiques and Rebuttals, Richard P. Phelps
College Admission Testing: Myths and Realities in an Age of Admissions Hype, Wayne J. Camara
Criticisms of Employment Testing: A Commentary, Ernest H. O'Boyle & Michael A. McDaniel
Mission: Protect the Public: Licensure and Certification Testing in the 21st Century, Stephen G. Sireci & Ron K. Hambleton
Mistaken Impressions of Large-Scale Cognitive Diagnostic Testing, Jacqueline P. Leighton
Summary & Discussion, Richard P. Phelps & Linda S. Gottfredson
|
|
ISBN: 9781433803925 or 1433803925
LB3051.C6386 2009
Dewey: 371.262 C824
#18 on Best Sellers in Education list for 2009, Library Journal
Reviews for Correcting Fallacies about Educational and Psychological Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standardized Testing Primer (Peter Lang, 2007)
 |
|
|
The Standardized Testing Primer provides non-specialists with a thorough overview of this controversial and complicated
topic. It eschews the statistical details of scaling, scoring, and measurement that are widely available in textbooks and at testing organization Web sites, and instead describes standardized testing's social and political roles and its practical uses, who tests, when, where, and why. Topics include: an historical background of testing's practical uses in psychology, education, and the workplace; the varied structures of educational testing programs and systems across countries; the mechanics of test development and quality assurance; and current trends in test development and administration. A glossary and bibliography are also provided. The Standardized Testing Primer is an ideal text for teaching this subject to undergraduate and graduate students.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Aptitude or Achievement: Two Separate Historical Paths
The Effects of Testing
Mechanics of Test Development and Quality Assurance
Conclusion
References & Resources
|
|
Find at Peter Lang Publishing, at
Amazon, or at
Barnes and Noble
Search: FetchBook.info
ISBN: 9780820497419 082049741X
OCLC: 155715191 paper
LOC: LB3051.P543
Dewey: 371.26'2-dc22
Reviews for Standardized Testing Primer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending Standardized Testing (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005)
 |
|
|
The education reform movement of
the past two decades has focused on raising academic standards. Some
standards advocates attach a testing mechanism to gauge the extent to
which high standards are actually accomplished, whereas some critics
accuse the push for standards and testing of impeding reform and
perpetuating inequality. At the same time, the testing profession has
produced advances in the format, accuracy, dependability, and utility
of tests. Never before has obtaining such an abundance of accurate and
useful information about student learning been possible. Meanwhile, the
American public remains steadfast in support of testing to measure
student performance and monitor the performance of educational systems.
Many educational testing experts who acknowledge the benefits of
testing also believe that those benefits have been insufficiently
articulated. Although much has been written on standardized testing
policy, most of the published material has been written by opponents.
The contributing authors of this volume are both accomplished
researchers and practitioners who are respected and admired worldwide.
They bring to the project an abundance of experience working with
standardized tests.
The goal of Defending Standardized Testing is to: describe current
standardized testing policies and strategies; explain many of the
common criticisms of standardized testing; document the public support
for, and the realized benefits of, standardized testing; acknowledge
the limitations of, and suggest improvements to, testing practices;
provide guidance for structuring testing programs in light of public
preference and the No Child Left Behind Act; and
present a defense of standardized testing and a practical vision for
its promise and future.
Table of Contents:
J.J. Fremer, Foreword: The Rest of the Story
R.P. Phelps, Persistently Positive: Forty Years of Public Opinion on Standardized Testing.
G.J. Cizek, High-Stakes Testing: Contexts, Characteristics, Critiques, and Consequences.
R.P. Phelps, The Rich, Robust Research Literature on Testing's Achievement Benefits.
D. Goodman, R.K. Hambleton, Some Misconceptions About Large-Scale Assessments.
S.G. Sireci, The Five Most Frequently Unasked Questions About Standardized Testing.
G.K. Cunningham, Must High-Stakes Mean Low Quality?
C. Buckendahl, R. Hunt, The Relationship Between the "Rules" and "Law" of Testing.
L. Crocker, Teaching FOR the Test: How and Why Test Preparation is Appropriate.
B.S. Plake, Doesn't Everybody Know That 70% Is Passing?
K.F. Gelsinger, The Testing Industry, Ethnic Minorities and Those with Disabilities.
D. Rogosa, API Awards and the Orange County Register Margin of Error Folly.
M.L. Bourque, Leave no Standardized Test Behind.
|
|
ISBN: 0805849114 cloth # 0805849122 paper
Reviews for Defending Standardized Testing
Available at your friendly neighborhood virtual bookstore, or through
Psychology Press: #
cloth #
paper
or
eBooks
Amazon
#
Barnes&Noble
#
AbeBooks
Search: FetchBook.info
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kill the Messenger (Transaction, 1st Printing, 2003 (cloth); 2nd Printing, 2005 (paper); Psychology Press, 3rd Printing, 2017 (paper)
 |
|
|
Description: In response to public
demand, new federal legislation requires testing of most students in
the United States in reading and mathematics, for grades three through
eight. In much of the country, this new order promotes an Increase in
the amount of standardized testing. Many educators, parents, and
policymakers who have paid little attention to testing policy issues in
the past will now do so. They deserve to have better information on the
topic than has generally been available, and Kill the Messenger is intended to fill this gap. Kill the Messenger
is perhaps the most thorough and authoritative work in defense of
educational testing ever written. Phelps points out that much research
conducted by education insiders on the topic is based on ideological
preference or profound self-interest. It is not surprising that they
arrive at emphatically anti-testing conclusions. He notes that external
and high stakes testing in particular attracts a cornucopia of
invective. Much, if not most, of this hostile research is passed on to
the public by journalists as if it were neutral, objective, and
independent. Kill the Messenger describes the current debate,
the players, their interests, and their positions. It explains and
refutes many of the common criticisms of testing. It describes testing
opponents strategies, through case studies of Texas and the SAT. It
acknowledges testing's limitations, and suggests how it can be improved.
It defends testing by comparing it with its alternatives. And finally,
it outlines the consequences of losing the war on standardized testing. |
|
ISBN Nos. 0765801787 (cloth) # 1412805120 (2nd printing, paper) # 1412805124 (3rd printing, paper)
Library of Congress call number: LB3051 .P54 2003
Dewey Decimal System number: 371.26/2
Association of American Publishers' Summary of Kill the Messenger
Reviews for Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing
Selected as a Profiler's Pick by YBP, Inc. and Academia Magazine from among their CORE 1000 recommended books for academic libraries, 2003/2004.
"Reviews the debate over standardized testing requirements and argues in favor of testing."
Available at your friendly neighborhood virtual bookstore: (or through Transaction Publishers)
Abe Books
#
Amazon
#
Barnes&Noble
SEARCH: FetchBook.info
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Source of Lake Wobegon
John J. Cannell's late 1980's "Lake Wobegon" reports suggested widespread deliberate educator manipulation of norm-referenced standardized test (NRT) administrations and results, resulting in artificial test score gains. The Cannell studies have been referenced in education research since, but as evidence that high stakes (and not cheating or lax security) cause test score inflation. This article examines that research and Cannell's data for evidence that high stakes cause test score inflation. No such evidence is found. Indeed, the evidence indicates that, if anything, the absence of high stakes is associated with artificial test score gains. The variable most highly correlated with test score inflation is general performance on achievement tests, with traditionally low-performing states exhibiting more test score inflation, on low-stakes norm-referenced tests, than traditionally high-performing states, regardless of whether or not a state also maintains a high-stakes testing program. The unsupported high-stakes-cause-test-score-inflation hypothesis seems to derive from the surreptitious substitution of an antiquated definition of the term "high stakes" and a few studies afflicted with left-out-variable bias. The source of test-score inflation is lax test security, regardless the stakes of the assessment.
Dan Koretz's Big Con [book review]
It's a Myth: High Stakes Cause Test Score Inflation [PowerPoint presentation]
The "teaching to the test" family of fallacies
Teaching to the test: A very large red herring
Guest Post at the Learning Scientists Blog: What Causes Test-score Inflation? Comparing Two Theories
Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us, by Daniel Koretz [book review]
The Source of Lake Wobegon [Updated]
The Source of Lake Wobegon [Updated] (pdf file)
The Source of Lake Wobegon [slide show]
The Rocky Score-line of Lake Wobegon
The Source of Lake Wobegon [original]
The Source of Lake Wobegon [original, pdf]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH ETHICS & DISSEMINATION:
Phelps, R. P. (June 26, 2024). What a database of more than a thousand dismissive literature reviews can tell us, Retraction Watch
Phelps, R. P. (2024). Dismissive Literature Reviews Reduce Understanding — So Why do Academics Keep Making Them?, Impact of Social Sciences blog, London School of Economics & Political Science, June 17, 2024.
Phelps, R. P. (2024, February 9). Worse than Plagiarism: False Firstness Claims and Dismissive Literature Reviews. Minding the Campus.
Phelps, R. P. (2023, June 16). Against Federally Funded Education Research Centers. Minding the Campus.
Phelps, R. P. (2023, May 31). Have the Gates Foundation and Its Allies Purchased US Education Journalism?, Minding the Campus.
Phelps, R. P. (2023, May 10). Are English Departments Really Dying? A closer look at the numbers reveals a more subtle story. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
Phelps, R. P. (January 19, 2023). US Education Journalists Source Research Expertise, NCME 2023 Winter Webinar Series, Informing Assessment Policy, Session 1: Media Coverage of Educational Testing
Phelps, R. P. (November 15, 2022).
Challenging the Academic Publisher Oligopoly, Technological and political changes may liberate scientific research.
, The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Phelps, R. P. (October 13, 2022). Subtractive Scholarship, Academe Blog
Phelps, R. P. (May 17, 2022). How citation cartels give 'strategic scholars' an advantage: A simple model, Retraction Watch
Phelps, R. P. (Fall, 2021). The Politicization of Education Research and the AERA, Academic Questions, National Association of Scholars
Phelps, R. P. (July 16, 2021). Peer Review: A Tarnished Gold Standard, James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Phelps, R. P. (Summer 2021). In Defense of Sandra Stotdky, Academic Questions
Phelps, R. P. (Mar. 23, 2021). Dismissive reviews: A cancer on the body of knowledge, Retraction Watch
Phelps, R. P. (September 2020). Looking Back on DC Education Reform 10 Years After, Part 1: The Grand Tour Nonpartisan Education Review
Phelps, R. P. (September 2020) .Looking Back on DC Education Reform 10 Years After, Part 2: Test Cheats Nonpartisan Education Review
Phelps, R. P. (Summer 2020) Down the Memory Hole: Evidence on Educational Testing, Academic Questions
Phelps, R. P. (2019, April 12). Strategic Partnerships - The end of independent viewpoints in education policy, Truth in American Education.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, July 13). Education Next, the Fordham Institute, and Common Core, Missouri Education Watchdog.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, July 13). Back to school means education news stories …for a while., Missouri Education Watchdog.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, April 26). Citation cartels and US education journalism, The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, April 12). US Education's Dominant Research Method: Cherry Picking Evidence, Truth in American Education.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, April 4). There's A Deeper Systemic Problem in the College Admissions Scandal No One Is Talking About, Independent Voter News.
Phelps, R. P. (2019, March 27). The elitist strain in US education journalism, Missouri Education Watchdog.
Phelps, R. P. (2018). To save the research literature, get rid of the literature review, Impact of Social Sciences blog, London School of Economics & Political Science, June 12, 2018.
Phelps, R. (April 11, 2018). Nation’s Report Card: Common Core Delivering Education Stagnation, Independent Voters Network (IVN).
Phelps, R. (April 3, 2018). There are Only Two Sides to US Education Policy (Thanks to the Parties), Independent Voters Network (IVN).
Phelps, R. P. (December 21, 2017). The What Works Clearinghouse Isn't Working, Real Clear Education.
Phelps, R. (September 6, 2017). The Gates Effect: Common Core Has Powerful Ally Keeping Unpopular Program Alive, Independent Voters Network (IVN).
Phelps, R. P. (2015). "The Cork in the Bottle" The education establishment doesn't need to censor and suppress most of the evidence and information they do not like, the think tank elite does it for them. The think tank elite is the cork in the bottle that keeps the American public misinformed.
Phelps, R. P. (2015). "Educational Morass Forever" It requires long seasoning in the bog for any person to develop a taste for which education information is accurate, which is myth, and which is just plain dishonest.
Phelps, R. P. (2015). Kamenetz, A. (2015). The Test: Why our schools are obsessed with standardized testing, but you don't have to be. New York: Public Affairs. [book review]
Phelps, R. P. (2014). The Gauntlet: Think tanks and federally funded centers misrepresent and suppress other education research
Phelps, R. P. (2014). Synergies for better learning: an international perspective on evaluation and assessment, by the OECD [report review by R.P. Phelps], in Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, v.21, i.4, 2014
Myron Lieberman Tributes, Journal of School Choice, v.8, i.2, 2014: #
Introduction: Myron Lieberman, Knowledgeable, Forthright, Independent, Rare #
Educational Morass Forever #
The Cork in the Bottle # A Myron Lieberman Bibliogrphy
Phelps, R. P., & R. James Milgram. (2014, September). The Revenge of K-12: How Common Core and the new SAT lower college standards in the U.S., Pioneer Institute report.
Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot spreads worldwide: The OECD: Taken in and taking sides. New Educational Foundations, Winter, 2013.
Phelps, R. P. (2012, October 2). The school-test publishers complex Education News
Phelps, R. P. (2012, September 19). The (secret) document that drives standardized testing Education News
Phelps, R. P. (2012, May 30). Dismissive reviews: Academe's memory hole, Academic Questions, v.25, n.2.
Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot festers: Another National Research Council report on testing. New Educational Foundations, Summer, 2012.
Phelps, R. P. (2011, Autumn). Teach to the Test? Wilson Quarterly
The Rocky Score-Line of Lake Wobegon
The source of Lake Wobegon [updated] #
The source of Lake Wobegon [updated, pdf]
The National Research Council's Testing Expertise
Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us, by Daniel Koretz [book review]
Educational testing policy: Stuck between two political parties
High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation, book review, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.60, No.6, December 2000.
Phelps, Richard P. (1999) "Education Establishment Bias: A Look at the National Research Council's Critique of Test Utility Studies." The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 36(4). Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychologists, April.
Test-basher benefit-cost analysis," Network News & Views
"The dissolution of education knowledge," Educational Horizons
Censorship has many fathers
INTERNATIONAL:
Phelps, R. P. (2017). Boarding School: Benefits and Drawbacks, International Research-to-Practice Conference
Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, Astana, Kazakhstan, October, 2016.
Phelps, R. P. (2014). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment, by the OECD [report review by R.P. Phelps], in Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, v.21, i.4, 2014.
Phelps, R. P. (2014). Evaluaciones educacionales de gran escala en Chile: Son necesarias? CIPER, February 6, 2014.
Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot spreads worldwide: The OECD: Taken in and taking sides. New Educational Foundations, Winter, 2013.
Phelps, R. P., Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (2010, March). Report to Ofqual: On the reporting of measurement uncertainty and reliability for U.S. educational and licensure tests
Aubrey H. Wang, Ashaki B. Coleman, Richard J. Coley, & Richard P. Phelps
Preparing Teachers Around the World Educational Testing Service, 2003
Higher Education: An International Perspective (c)2003, Richard P. Phelps
...also available in paper and microfiche from ERIC, no. ED474484, Clearinghouse no. HE035711
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2000), Investing in Education: Analysis of the 1999 World Education Indicators,
Paris: Author, October.
Trends in large-scale, external testing outside the United States, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice (EMIP), V.19, N.1, Spring 2000.
Are U.S. students the most heavily tested on earth? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, V.15, N.3, Fall 1996
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Education in States and Nations, (2nd ed.), NCES 96-160, by Richard P. Phelps, Thomas M. Smith, and Nabeel Alsalam.Washington, DC: 1996.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. International Education
Expenditure Comparability Study: Final Report, (Vol. 2). Working Paper #17, by Richard P. Phelps and Shelley Burns. Washington, DC: 1997.
TESTING:
Phelps, R. P. (Septemberl 25, 2024). The Great AP Score Recalibration James G Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Phelps, R. P. (April 15, 2024). US Colleges and Admission Testing: Requiredd, Optional, or Blind? Minding the Campus.
Phelps, R. P. (April 22, 2022). The US Test Mess James G Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Phelps, R. P. (December 3, 2021). Are College Exit Exams a Valid Measure of Learning? It's Complicated James G Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Phelps, R. P. (September 2020). Looking Back on DC Education Reform 10 Years After, Part 1: The Grand Tour Nonpartisan Education Review
Phelps, R. P. (September 2020). Looking Back on DC Education Reform 10 Years After, Part 2: Test Cheats Nonpartisan Education Review
Phelps, R. P. (2017). Designing an Assessment System, International Research-to-Practice Conference
Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, Astana, Kazakhstan, October, 2016.
The "teaching to the test" family of fallacies, Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluacion Educativa, 10(1), (2017)
Phelps, R. P. (2015). Presentation before the Governor's Council on Common Core Review, Little Rock, Arkansas, May 2015 [slide show]
Phelps, R. P. (2015). "The Cork in the Bottle" The education establishment doesn't need to censor and suppress most of the evidence and information they do not like, the think tank elite does it for them. The think tank elite is the cork in the bottle that keeps the American public misinformed.
Phelps, R. P. (2015). Kamenetz, A. (2015). The Test: Why our schools are obsessed with standardized testing, but you don't have to be. New York: Public Affairs. [book review]
Phelps, R. P. (2014). Synergies for better learning: an international perspective on evaluation and assessment, by the OECD [report review by R.P. Phelps], in Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, v.21, i.4, 2014
Phelps, R. P. (2014). Evaluaciones educacionales de gran escala en Chile: Son necesarias? CIPER, February 6, 2014.
Phelps, R. P. (2012, October 2). The school-test publishers complex Education News
Phelps, R. P. (2012, September 19). The (secret) document that drives standardized testing Education News
Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot festers: Another National Research Council report on testing. New Educational Foundations, Summer, 2012.
Phelps, R. P. (2011, Autumn). Teach to the Test? Wilson Quarterly
Phelps, R. P. (2011). The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910-2010: Source List, Effect Sizes, and References for Quantitative Studies. Nonpartisan Education Review/Resources.
Phelps, R. P. (2011). The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910-2010: Source List, Effect Sizes, and References for Survey Studies. Nonpartisan Education Review/Resources.
Phelps, R.P. (2011). The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910-2010: Source List, Effect Sizes, and References for Qualitative Studies. Nonpartisan Education Review/Resources.
Phelps, R. P., Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (2010, March). Report to Ofqual: On the reporting of measurement uncertainty and reliability for U.S. educational and licensure tests
The Rocky Score-Line of Lake Wobegon
The source of Lake Wobegon [updated] #
The source of Lake Wobegon [updated, pdf]
The National Research Council's Testing Expertise
Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us, by Daniel Koretz [book review]
Characteristics of an effective testing system
The source of Lake Wobegon #
The source of Lake Wobegon [pdf] #
See Bas Braams' excellent essay on this topic.
Educational testing policy: Stuck between two political parties
Standardized testing, regrettable food, urine therapy, and trichotillomania
(Adults Only!)
Organizations and Individuals to Contact for Information on Testing
Economic Perspectives on Standardized Testing (powerpoint file)
High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation, book review, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.60, No.6, December 2000.
Test-basher benefit-cost analysis," Network News & Views
Phelps, Richard P. (1999) "Education Establishment Bias: A Look at the National Research
Council's Critique of Test Utility Studies." The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 36(4). Society
of Industrial-Organizational Psychologists, April.
The Demand for Standardized Student Testing, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, V.17, N.3, Fall 1998.
Trends in large-scale, external testing outside the United States, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice (EMIP), V.19, N.1, Spring 2000.
Are U.S. students the most heavily tested on earth? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, V.15, N.3, Fall 1996
U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Testing: Current Extent and Expenditures, With Cost
Estimates for a National Examination. PEMD-93-8 January 13, 1993
EDUCATION FINANCE:
Phelps, R. P. (2006, September 1). Thoroughly Inadequate: The 'School Funding Adequacy' Evasion Nevada Policy Research Institute.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Testing: Current Extent and Expenditures, With Cost
Estimates for a National Examination. PEMD-93-8 January 13, 1993
"A Primer on Privatization," July 2001
STATISTICAL/METHODOLOGY/EVALUATION:
Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot spreads worldwide: The OECD: Taken in and taking sides. New Educational Foundations, Winter, 2013.
"book review: Raising the Grade: How High School Reform Can Save Our Youth and Our Nation
by Bob Wise," Educational Horizons,
"Dropping the ball on dropouts," Educational Horizons,
"The dissolution of education knowledge," Educational Horizons,
Standardized testing, regrettable food, urine therapy, and trichotillomania (Adults Only!)
"A review of the Manhattan Institute's Graduation Rates in the United States," Practical, Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, v.10, n.15
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Features of Occupational Programs at the Secondary and Postsecondary Education Levels. NCES 2001-018, by Richard P. Phelps, Basmat Parsad, Elizabeth Farris, and Lisa Hudson. Project Officer:
Bernard Greene. Washington, DC: 2001.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. State Indicators in
Education 1997, NCES 97-376, by Richard P. Phelps, Andrew Cullen, Jack C. Easton, and
Clayton M. Best. Project Officer, Claire Geddes. Washington, DC: 1997.
Censorship has many fathers
Not on the Web (INTERNATIONAL):
"Benchmarking to the World's Best in Mathematics: Quality Control in Curriculum and
Instruction Among the Top-Performing Countries on the TIMSS," Evaluation Review, August
2001
Review of Survey Items on Continuing Education and Training, NCES-OECD, Feb. 1998
"Student Achievement and Adult Literacy," chapter 6, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators,
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD, 1997
Description and Status of U.S.-based International Benchmarking Efforts, NCES, 1997
"International Comparisons of Public Expenditures on Education," in: The Condition of
Education, 1998, _1997, _1996, _1995, _1994, NCES
Survey of Countries' Practices Benchmarking Math Standards, NCES, 1996
"Education in States and Nations" in Measuring What Students Learn, OECD, 1995
"Education Finance Indicators: What Can We Learn From Comparing States With Nations?" in
Developments in School Finance, NCES, January 1995.
An Overview of the Korean Vocational Education System, PES, July 1994
"American Public Opinion on Trade, 1950-1990," Business Economics, (v.28 n.3), July 1993
"A Welcome Rain Falls in West Africa," The Christian Science Monitor, June 23, and on Monitor
Radio, June 26-28, 1987.
Not on the Web (TESTING):
Phelps, R.P. (2012). The effect of testing on student achievement, 1910-2010. International Journal of Testing, 12(1), pp.21-43.
"Estimating the Cost of Systemwide Student Testing in the United States," Journal of Education Finance (JEF), Winter 2000
"Extent and Character of Systemwide Testing in the U.S." Educational Assessment, V.4, N.2, 1997
"The Fractured Marketplace for Standardized Testing," book review, Economics of Education Review, (v.13 n.4) December, 1994
"The Economics of Standardized Testing," delivered at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, 1994
"Benefit-Cost Analyses of Testing Programs," delivered at the annual
meeting of the American Education Finance Association, 1994
"National Testing, Pro and Con," The Education Digest, November, 1993.
Not on the Web (EDUCATION FINANCE):
National Assessment of Vocational Education: Funding and Accountability, PES
"Estimating the Cost of Systemwide Student Testing in the United States," Journal of Education Finance (JEF), Winter 2000
The Effect of University Host Community Size on State Growth," Economics of Education Review, v.17,n.2, 1998.
Education System Benefits of U.S. Metric Conversion," Evaluation Review, Feb. 1996.
"Education Finance Indicators: What Can We Learn From Comparing States With Nations?" in
Developments in School Finance, NCES, January 1995.
"The Fractured Marketplace for Standardized Testing," book review, Economics of Education Review, (v.13 n.4) December, 1994
"The Economics of Standardized Testing," delivered at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, 1994
"Benefit-Cost Analyses of Testing Programs," delivered at the annual
meeting of the American Education Finance Association, 1994
"Education Finance in States and Nations," delivered at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, 1994
"Sensitivity Analysis of International Education Finance
Indicators," delivered at the annual meeting of the American Education
Finance Association, 1994
Not on the Web (STATISTICAL/METHODOLOGY/EVALUATION):
Longitudinal Data Analysis -- A Guide for NCES Data Users, Chapter 3, NCES
Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1997, NSF, November 2000
The Effect of University Host Community Size on State Growth," Economics of Education Review, v.17,n.2, 1998.
Review of Survey Items on Continuing Education and Training, NCES-OECD, Feb. 1998
Review of Proposed Indicators for Network B-Student Outcomes, NCES-OECD, July 1997
"Student Achievement and Adult Literacy," chapter 6, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators,
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD, 1997
"International Comparisons of Public Expenditures on Education," in: The Condition of
Education, 1998, _1997, _1996, _1995, _1994, NCES
Education System Benefits of U.S. Metric Conversion," Evaluation Review, Feb. 1996.
