FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W330778524> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W330778524 startingPage "259" @default.
• W330778524 abstract "Most readers of this column were not close enough to the debate over national tests to know how intensely hot it got. Those who were witnessed an unbelievable scene. The debate was scorching, divisive, and deeply disturbing to many people in many fields - and it isn't over yet. One can only hope that, in the long run, the anguish it has caused will be assuaged by knowing that some issues that had been ignored for too long were finally put on the table. However, the price of getting to the real problems was stiff. No issue in the past has ruptured the education community in Washington as badly as the proposal for national testing of individual students in reading and math. Civil rights and advocacy groups, for example, lost their cohesion for a while, desperately wanting an accountability system that would show up problem schools and districts - which proponents claimed the national tests could do - but also mistrusting the use of tests that might not be reliable or valid and that were insensitive to the concerns of minority communities. The refusal of the Clinton Administration to consider accommodations for districts with large percentages of language-minority children caused the Administration to lose support from some districts that had initially approved of the testing idea. The Administration's decision to allow states to use the tests to satisfy assessment requirements for Title I was a final unacceptable straw for most in the advocacy community. Title I requires states to develop assessments that are as challenging as their content standards. The proposed national tests, to be 80% multiple-choice with no provision for language-minority children, would not meet the requirements, many Title I watchers decided. The testing debate also played havoc with relationships and status within the education community. In years past this community had resisted ploys to set factions against one another, such as appropriations proposals meant to split K-12 interests from those of higher education. But the testing debate created rifts and strange alignments. Some major lobbyists on education issues stayed on the sidelines; others took prominent roles in supporting the tests, even though that meant being on opposite sides from their usual allies. For example, a consortium of assessment research and development entities lobbied hard for the proposal despite the general reluctance of the assessment community to support it. Worst of all, this battle became a political one, not really a battle to help young people. In the first place, it was clear from the Administration's arguments that the primary purpose of the tests was to send a message. The public and parents, it said, need to know how students stack up against high standards in order to gamer public support for standards-based school reforms, which it believes is lagging. But using high-stakes tests to carry a political message is risky at best. The Administration used every means possible to get its message across- from President Clinton's speeches, to twisting the arms of political friends, to arguments for the tests in every communications medium employed by the Department of Education. Even an innocent-enough pamphlet distributed as part of a public service television campaign that encouraged parents to get involved in education told them to do their duty and ask their state leaders to support the tests. Last spring the National Association of Testing Directors (NATD) wrote the Department of Education about some concerns it had regarding the testing proposal. The NATD questioned the fact that the proposal had no clear, well-defined purpose, and it pointed out that tests would take more time away from instruction, that they could become an administrative burden, that they could sample only a small number of important instructional objectives, and that they overlooked the problem of student motivation related to external testing. …" @default.
• W330778524 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W330778524 creator A5036808576 @default.
• W330778524 date "1997-12-01" @default.
• W330778524 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W330778524 title "National Tests Ignite Scorching Debate" @default.
• W330778524 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W330778524 type Work @default.
• W330778524 sameAs 330778524 @default.
• W330778524 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W330778524 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W330778524 hasAuthorship W330778524A5036808576 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C104054115 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C203151758 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C2776007630 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C2777344014 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C2780765947 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W330778524 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C104054115 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C111472728 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C138885662 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C145420912 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C151730666 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C15744967 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C17744445 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C178790620 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C185592680 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C199539241 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C203151758 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C2776007630 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C2777267654 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C2777344014 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C2780765947 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C3116431 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C39549134 @default.
• W330778524 hasConceptScore W330778524C86803240 @default.
• W330778524 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W330778524 hasLocation W3307785241 @default.
• W330778524 hasOpenAccess W330778524 @default.
• W330778524 hasPrimaryLocation W3307785241 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W123578801 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W176096665 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W1964928145 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2021668740 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2028116190 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2044094201 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2064203586 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W221157974 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2312516770 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2324166807 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W236163680 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W27982036 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W284090985 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W2992265514 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W330607523 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W336895935 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W40932900 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W54792653 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W74460411 @default.
• W330778524 hasRelatedWork W804996833 @default.
• W330778524 hasVolume "78" @default.
• W330778524 isParatext "false" @default.
• W330778524 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W330778524 magId "330778524" @default.
• W330778524 workType "article" @default.