The Implications of Reduced Testing for Teacher Accountability

Every-grade, every-year testing plays a prominent part in U.S. education policy and research, but the rise of standardized testing has been met with frustration and opposition. In response, policymakers have proposed legislation designed to curb the amount of standardized testing. There is little empirical evidence, however, about the potential impact of these alternate approaches on current evaluation systems. Using data from a large, urban school district, we compare value-added (VA) estimates from every-year, every-grade testing to those from two reduced-testing scenarios. We find marginal changes in the value-added estimates in both approaches relative to more traditional VA estimates. Estimates from annual testing in alternating subjects are slightly less precise but have lower associations with prior student achievement than biennial testing in both subjects. Further, there is significant decrease in the number of teachers for whom scores can be estimated in both approaches, exacerbating long-standing concerns with VA methodology.

每年级、每学年测评（every-grade, every-year testing）在美国教育政策与研究中占据重要地位，但标准化测评（standardized testing）的普及却招致了诸多不满与反对。对此，政策制定者已提出相关法案，旨在管控标准化测评的实施规模。然而，目前鲜有实证证据（empirical evidence）能够说明这些替代方案对现行教育测评体系的潜在影响。本研究依托某大型城区学区的数据集，对比了基于每年级、每学年测评的增值测评（value-added, VA）估计结果，与两种缩减测评方案下的增值估计结果。研究发现，相较于传统增值测评估计结果，两种替代方案下的增值估计结果仅存在小幅变动。相较于双科目双年度测评（biennial testing in both subjects），轮换科目年度测评的估计结果精度略有下降，但与学生前期学业表现的关联度更低。此外，两种替代方案中可获取有效测评得分的教师人数均出现显著下降，进一步加剧了学界长期以来对增值测评方法论的争议。