国家考试政策和基于教育的问责制考试:选择在学生成绩中的作用

William C. Smith
{"title":"国家考试政策和基于教育的问责制考试:选择在学生成绩中的作用","authors":"William C. Smith","doi":"10.1787/ECO_STUDIES-2016-5JG1JXFTJ4R3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly accountability in education has linked student test scores to teacher and school evaluations. The underlying assumption behind this educator based accountability is that the high stakes linked to student test scores will prompt behavioral change, thus improving student learning and education quality. This study conducts a cross policy analysis using pooled data from the 2009 PISA, categorizing participant countries of the 2009 PISA into three national testing policies based on what type of educator based accountability is applied in the country. Results indicate that initial differences between national testing policy categories are not significant once school types and school practices that select on the student are included. This suggests that potential gains from more stringent accountability may be an artifact of schools under pressure engaging in practices that shape their testing pool, such as admitting only relatively high achieving students or transferring out lower achieving students.\nJEL classification: I21, I24, I25, I28\nKeywords: Education, PISA, accountability, testing, equity","PeriodicalId":416490,"journal":{"name":"Oecd Journal: Economic Studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"National testing policies and educator based testing for accountability: The role of selection in student achievement\",\"authors\":\"William C. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1787/ECO_STUDIES-2016-5JG1JXFTJ4R3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Increasingly accountability in education has linked student test scores to teacher and school evaluations. The underlying assumption behind this educator based accountability is that the high stakes linked to student test scores will prompt behavioral change, thus improving student learning and education quality. This study conducts a cross policy analysis using pooled data from the 2009 PISA, categorizing participant countries of the 2009 PISA into three national testing policies based on what type of educator based accountability is applied in the country. Results indicate that initial differences between national testing policy categories are not significant once school types and school practices that select on the student are included. This suggests that potential gains from more stringent accountability may be an artifact of schools under pressure engaging in practices that shape their testing pool, such as admitting only relatively high achieving students or transferring out lower achieving students.\\nJEL classification: I21, I24, I25, I28\\nKeywords: Education, PISA, accountability, testing, equity\",\"PeriodicalId\":416490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oecd Journal: Economic Studies\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oecd Journal: Economic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1787/ECO_STUDIES-2016-5JG1JXFTJ4R3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oecd Journal: Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1787/ECO_STUDIES-2016-5JG1JXFTJ4R3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

越来越多的教育问责制将学生的考试成绩与教师和学校的评估联系起来。这种基于教育者的责任背后的潜在假设是,与学生考试成绩相关的高风险将促使行为改变,从而提高学生的学习和教育质量。本研究使用2009年国际学生评估项目的汇总数据进行了交叉政策分析,将2009年国际学生评估项目的参与国根据该国采用的基于教育者的问责制类型将其分为三种国家测试政策。结果表明,一旦包括学校类型和选择学生的学校实践,国家测试政策类别之间的初始差异并不显著。这表明,从更严格的问责制中获得的潜在收益可能是学校在压力下参与塑造考试池的做法的产物,例如只录取成绩相对较高的学生或将成绩较差的学生转出。JEL分类:I21, I24, I25, i28关键词:教育,PISA,问责制,测试,公平
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
National testing policies and educator based testing for accountability: The role of selection in student achievement
Increasingly accountability in education has linked student test scores to teacher and school evaluations. The underlying assumption behind this educator based accountability is that the high stakes linked to student test scores will prompt behavioral change, thus improving student learning and education quality. This study conducts a cross policy analysis using pooled data from the 2009 PISA, categorizing participant countries of the 2009 PISA into three national testing policies based on what type of educator based accountability is applied in the country. Results indicate that initial differences between national testing policy categories are not significant once school types and school practices that select on the student are included. This suggests that potential gains from more stringent accountability may be an artifact of schools under pressure engaging in practices that shape their testing pool, such as admitting only relatively high achieving students or transferring out lower achieving students. JEL classification: I21, I24, I25, I28 Keywords: Education, PISA, accountability, testing, equity
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信