Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
State Assessments (state + assessment)
Selected AbstractsDistrict Accountability Without a State Assessment: A Proposed ModelEDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT: ISSUES AND PRACTICE, Issue 4 2002Chad W. Buckendahl Most states have adopted assessment and accountability systems that involve common measures of student performance. A state assessment system that allows school districts to choose the specific strategies they use to measure student performance on state-adopted content standards presents a unique state accountability challenge. The authors propose an accountability model that addresses this challenge using a combination of student performance, technical quality, and noncognitive indicators of performance. They also describe a study that evaluated the proposed model using data from all school districts in a southern state. [source] A Guide to Understanding and Developing Performance-Level DescriptorsEDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT: ISSUES AND PRACTICE, Issue 4 2008Marianne Perie There has been much discussion recently about why the percentage of students scoring Proficient or above varies as much as it does on state assessments across the country. However, most of these discussions center on the leniency or rigor of the cut score. Yet, the cut score is developed in a standard-setting process that depends heavily on the definition for each level of performance. Good performance-level descriptors (PLDs) can be the foundation of an assessment program, driving everything from item development to cut scores to reporting. PLDs should be written using a multistep process. First, policymakers determine the number and names of the levels. Next, they develop policy definitions specifying the level of rigor intended by each level, regardless of the grade or subject to which it is applied. Finally, content experts and education leaders should supplement these policy definitions with specific statements related to the content standards for each assessment. This article describes a process for developing PLDs, contrasts that with current state practice, and discusses the implication for interpreting the word "proficient," which is the keystone of No Child Left Behind. [source] The missing link: on the line between C and EHEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 8 2003Werner B.F. Brouwer Abstract In this paper it is argued that the separation of elements associated with the time spent by the patient is not conducted in a consistent way. This is the case for income (for which there at least has been some attention) and for other time elements like lost unpaid work, leisure and role-functioning. The use of general rather than specific preferences in health state assessments makes the separation of time-elements into costs and effects difficult. While costs are calculated specifically for the patient group under study, effects are normally derived from preferences in the general public. The characteristics of these two groups in terms of (the opportunity of) spending time on activities need not coincide. The use of specific time-group valuations of health states may be a good alternative to using general health state valuations. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Honesty As Good Policy: Evaluating Maryland's Medicaid Managed Care ProgramTHE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 3 2003DEBBIE I. CHANG Throughout the 1990s, the states launched many large-scale innovations in health care financing and delivery. The demands associated with designing, implementing, and managing such initiatives compete for those resources needed to evaluate the impact of the innovations. But without a good faith effort to launch a credible evaluation, innovative and controversial programs may not be able to be sustained. Striking a balance between advocating for change and honestly determining how well the desired changes have been achieved is a delicate and daunting task, and state policymakers often do not spend much time evaluating their efforts, even though this may be critical to the success of their programs. This article describes one state's assessment of a statewide, prepaid, Medicaid managed care program. We look at the evaluation as both an exercise in policy analysis and an indication of the response to various constituencies' concerns. Three of us either worked for the state or contracted with the state to help evaluate the program. [source] | ||||||||||