National Educational Standards and Testing

A Response to the Recommendations of the National Council on Education Standards and Testing

by Daniel Koretz, George F. Madaus, Edward Haertel, Albert E. Beaton

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

The policies for a new testing system recommended by the NCEST, while perhaps seemingly commonsensical, are unlikely to work and may have serious negative side effects. Despite their criticism of the proposed assessment system, the authors endorse the proposal to move ahead with a national debate on educational standards through a serious R&D effort. Such an effort should include serious research on the quality and effects of new performance assessments; an investigation of costs, including non-financial and indirect costs; and building of an infrastructure capable of supporting new assessment systems. An independent, non-partisan body is needed to evaluate any new standards and examinations developed through this process. (Testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, February 19, 1992.)

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Testimony series. RAND testimonies record testimony presented by RAND associates to federal, state, or local legislative committees; government-appointed commissions and panels; and private review and oversight bodies.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.