Running Head: POLICY FRAMING PAPER 1

Reassessing Educational Assessment in Virginia: A Policy Framing Paper

Meredith Mitchell

George Mason University

EDUC 870, Spring 2015

Dr. Rodney Hopson

POLICY FRAMING PAPER 2

Reassessing Educational Assessment in Virginia: A Policy Framing Proposal

The last fifty years of education in American have been marked by increased federal involvement

and influence, and as a direct consequence, there have arisen important and relevant consequences for our

nations young people (Au, 2007; Hursh, 2007; Cohen-Vogel & McLendon, 2009). Our nation first

experienced the pervasive influence of the federal government in education in 1968, with the passage of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which over time and multiple iterations, has

evolved to what we now know as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (Fuller, Wright, Gesicki &

Kang, 2007). In the earliest conception, ESEA laid the groundwork for approaching education more

systematically, highlighting the needs for more standardized accountability measures so that policy

makers and educational stakeholders could monitor the effects of various programs and funding measures

(Fuller, Wright, Gesicki & Kang, 2007). As the federal government became increasingly entwined with

education at the state and district level over time, so increased the stakes of these tests, the emphasis

placed on standardized testing, and the attention devoted to students demonstrating memorization of and

proficiency in reproducing curriculum content knowledge (Au, 2007).

While such a system of accountability and standardization has merit in allowing us one way to

understand what students have learned in schools, this highly technical-rational framework is shortsighted

in terms of understanding the work being done within schools and the holistic growth and development of

children as a result of their schooling (Supovitz, 2009). Reducing a child to a single test score fails to

recognize the full gamut of values and skills the education system provides young people; an economic

perspective (Hanushek, 2009) simply cannot encapsulate the complexity of human growth and

development (Desimone, 2009). The high stakes associated with educational testing results in the

unnecessary narrowing of curriculum and instruction within schools and often fails to recognize the

academic strengths of populations of students, particularly those with special learning needs and English

Language Learners (Au, 2007).

POLICY FRAMING PAPER 3

Alternatively, there is a large body of research that points to the merits of collecting standardized

data about students for the purposes of accountability and informing instruction (Buck, Ritter, Jensen &

Rose, 2010). Qualitative teacher accounts have noted the stresses that arise from a test centric culture, but

such benefits as using data as a roadmap for future instruction and facilitating collaboration among

teacher teams have been cited, as well (Buck, Ritter, Jensen & Rose, 2010). Additionally, some studies

have pointed to the ways that summative testing can actually encourage the use of effective teaching

methods for improving academic achievement (Williamson, Bondy, Langley & Mayne, 2005). While the

literature demonstrates the negative consequences of standardized testing, there is evidence that testing

and accountability can inspire positive educational consequences, at least within certain contexts. While

there are some noted benefits, these benefits are not reason enough to universally justify practices that

evidentially perpetuate inequity and result in other negative classroom consequences. The question will

be: how do we reap the benefits of educational assessment without incurring all of the negative

consequences?

States and school districts across the nation have increasingly adapted their practices to fit the

demands of the new test centric culture of education and implementers of these reforms often experience

mixed results as to the merits of this educational focus. Many research based interest groups, notably the

Partnership for 21st Century Learning, have dedicated their research efforts to exploring ways in which

educators can refocus the efforts and emphasis of schooling back to practices that directly result in

authentic, real world applicable skillsets to benefit students (Supovitz, 2009; Kay & Greenhill, 2011;

Voogt & Roblin, 2012, Jacobsen-Lundeberg, 2013). The current problem lies in that without a policy that

can balance the need for accountability with holistic, real world learning, we will continue to plow a

course that does not effectively prepare students for their futures. Additionally, we may draw conclusions

about students and the state of education that do not adequately reflect reality (Linn, 1993).

The state of Virginia has, relatively speaking, rebelled against the federal involvement in

education by being one of just four states that rejected the adoption of the Common Core curriculum
POLICY FRAMING PAPER 4

rolled out by the federal government. This state is perfectly situated to initiate its own path of educational

reform and can do so by enacting a policy aimed at allowing for multiple pathways by which students

may be academically assessed. By creating a policy at the state level that works reflexively with

individual districts, the state of Virginia can ensure teachers are educating students effectively and

teachers, schools, and districts will have the autonomy to develop assessment measures that suit the

context of the schools and fit the strengths and needs of their student populations in order to better

understand student progress. This policy fits the framework of co-construction (Datnow & Park, 2009);

the work of the state and district will be generated contextually and be flexible enough to adapt to the

needs of students and the ever changing economic landscape of America for which teachers prepare their

students. The table below summarizes the ways in which the co-construction framework of policy

implementation suits the issue of an assessment policy reform and also delineates how the traditionally

employed technical- rational perspective fails to respond to an issue as complex as evaluation and

assessment:

Table 1

Comparison of two frameworks of educational assessment

Current Nature of Proposed Nature of

Educational Assessment Educational Assessment

Theoretical Framework Technical- Rational Co-construction

Policy Actors State and local administrators. Students, teachers, principals and

Students, teachers, and school school leaders, state and local

leaders are recipients of policy, not administrators would work together

enactors. to generate policy.

Direction of Interaction Top Down: state and local Reflexive (Top Down and Bottom

administrators mandate the work of Up): partnerships are created

teachers and students between multiple levels of actors to

POLICY FRAMING PAPER 5

generate policy changes

Direction of Policy Process Linear: as policy is rolled out, it is Cyclical: as successes and issues

systematically disseminated and arise among the multiple levels,

implemented down the hierarchy other levels of actors reevaluate and

curtail practices to fit these needs, all

while keeping the interest of

students at the forefront of decision

making

Strengths of Framework Standardization (for comparative Responsive to context (differences

purposes) in student populations or curricular

needs or focuses of the community),

emphasis on relationships between

educational actors, based in

compromise and negotiation

Limitations of Framework Generalized understanding of Complex and multifaceted approach

student learning, inequitable and to understanding student learning,

inflexible to students diverse potentially requires more time for

learning needs collaboration, and potentially

requires educational actors to make

some concessions

Nature of Evidence and Data Quantitative test scores Qualitative and quantitative test and

Collected project scores, opinions and open

responses, multimedia and

technology enhanced student work,

portfolios, narratives
POLICY FRAMING PAPER 6

The proposed policy will be a major shift from the federally constructed technical-rational

perspective, however by enacting a more liberal accountability policy based in the reflexive process of co-

construction, we allow students, teachers, as well as school, local and state leaders to work together and

respond to the needs of their unique students and specific contexts. An accountability policy derived

from multiple players will allow for those who are most greatly affected, students and teachers, to

participate in the policy process, while still allowing for the generalized perspective of administrators to

respond and inform the policy. The nature of this process would be cyclical, which in turn would require

increased collaboration and willingness to compromise between all involved parties, however through the

time consuming process, we can unlock the potential to decrease the issues of inequity and

misunderstanding about students learning and growth. In this model, students will no longer be reduced

to a test score, rather their growth and learning could be considered through complementary

methodologies (Desimone, 2009). Different school or classroom contexts would have the flexibility to

incorporate multiple measures of student learning and achievement as evidence for valuable learning

experiences taking place in the classroom. These forms of evidence could include but not be limited to

portfolio reviews, technology based projects or presentations, student and teacher narratives, or other

authentically produced artifacts of student work. Testing and other standardized forms of assessment

need not be eliminated from the assessment paradigm; but rather be one of many processes within a

toolkit teachers and schools could elect to use in order to monitor the development of students. Such a

policy would evoke continued discussion and debate, and potentially anxiety about the ambiguity of what

and how districts and schools should monitor student learning, but by removing the demands of the

current assessment structure, and allowing districts and schools ample time to develop an initial course of

action for when that structure is removed, educators will have the freedom to better serve the needs of

students.

If education is truly meant to serve as a democratic equalizer (Schoenfeld & Pearson, 2009), it is

time that assessment and evaluation practices reflect and build upon the strengths and skills of students,
POLICY FRAMING PAPER 7

not systematically reduce the learning process. By utilizing the co-construction framework of policy

implementation, a Virginia state policy that allows for alternative methods of educational assessment will

serve to provide autonomy and authentic teaching and learning experiences for educators and their

students, better serve these students in preparing for their futures, and will begin to address a pervasive

issue of flawed and inequitable assessment in American education today.

POLICY FRAMING PAPER 8

References

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis.

Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

Buck, S., Ritter, G., Jensen, N., & Rose, C. (2010). Teachers say the most interesting things- an

view of testing. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 50-54.

Cohen-Vogel, L. & McLendon, M. (2009). New approaches to understanding federal involvement in

education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy

Research (735-748). NY: Routledge.

Datnow, A. & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation : Large-scale reform in an era of

complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy

Research (348-361). NY: Routledge.

Desmione, L. (2009). Complementary methods for policy research. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D.N.

Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (163-175). NY: Routledge.

Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: how to judge no child

left behind? Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.

Hanushek, E. A. (2009). The economic value of education and cognitive skills. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider

& D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (39-56). NY: Routledge.

Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education

policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518.

POLICY FRAMING PAPER 9

Jacobsen-Lundeberg, V. (2013). Communication, collaboration and credibility: Empowering

marginalized youth with 21st century skills. International Journal of Vocational Education &

Training, 21(2).

Kay, K. & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In G. Wan & D.

Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41-65). Netherlands: Springer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_3

Linn, R.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1164248

Schoenfeld, A.H. & Pearson, P.D. (2009). The reading and math wars. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider &

D.N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (560-580). NY: Routledge.

Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from

the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10,

211-227.

Voogt, J. & Roblin, N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century

competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

44(3), 299-321. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Williamson, P., Bondy, E., Langley, L., & Mayne, D. (2005). Meeting the challenge of high-

stakes testing while remaining child-centered: the representations of two urban teachers.

Childhood Education, 81(4), 190-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2005.10522271