96 00685

PACE

POLICY ANALYSIS FOR CALIFORNIA EDUCATION

 

THE RISE, FALL, AND RISE
OF STATE ASSESSMENT
IN CALIFORNIA: 1993-1996

Michael W. Kirst
Stanford University

Christopher Mazzeo
Stanford University

July, 1996

 

Policy Analysis for California Education

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is a university-
based research center focusing on issues of state education policy
and practice. PACE is located in the Schools of Education at the
University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University and
has an office in Sacramento. PACE is supported by funding from
the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Additional copies of this publication, PP96-7-1, are available prepaid ($4).
(All sales are final.)
Please make check payable to UC Regents and send to:

PACE
School of Education
3653 Tolman Hall
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1670
(510) 642-7223
FAX (510) 642-9148

Copyright
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)
Berkeley, California

July, 1996

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

THE RISE, FALL , AND RISE OF STATE ASSESSMENT
IN CALIFORNIA: 1993-19961

The feasibility and political support for new forms of pupil assessment has
become a major political issue. California was a pioneer through a system
entitled, ”The California Learning Assessment System (CLAS)." For different
reasons, conservative religious groups, parents, the California School Board
Association, the California Teachers Association, and the Governor all raised
objections to the assessment during its 1993 implementation. With CLAS
now discontinued, many questions emerge. Answers to these can shed light
not only on the future of assessment policy in California, but more generally
on the politics of testing. What happened to CLAS? Why did it generate so
much opposition? Why was CLAS not able to sustain the political coalition
that created it? What are the future prospects for testing policy and the

politics of testing.

What the CLAS case illustrates are some of the difficulties involved in wide-
scale transformation of state assessment systems. For advocates of
performance-based testing, the California case stands as an exemplar of the
difficulties in moving policy towards more “authentic” forms of assessment,
and away from measuring basic skills through multiple choice. While factors
unique to California (i.e. election year politics) can partially explain CLAS
outcomes, other aspects of the case offer more general lessons for reformers

about the politics of testing policy in the United States.

 

1 Paper presented for the 1996 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association,
New York, April 10, 1996. Research was supported by Consortium for Policy Research in
Education and Policy Analysis for California Education. Neal Finkelstein edited the middle
portion of the manuscript.

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 1

      
 

 

”L
‘147‘ f.‘ ' J 4.;

  

 

   

 

   

 

 

'Wmmmfld «33'3“:333 ~33; 3r,-

 

‘RW 3333 33333331331631; 'r. w . k 3.3 , a J
’ifiififf‘g-‘)3 x 3 . ' _ 3 . 3
‘ §
0

  

 

 

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

CLAS was developed in 1991 to replace its predecessor, the California
Assessment Program (CAP). CLAS was designed to satisfy a number of
different needs the previous testing program did not meet. Three goals of
CLAS stand out: 1) to align California’s testing system to the content of what
was taught in schools—as represented in state curricular frameworks; 2) to
better measure attainment of curricular content through performance-based
standard setting and assessment; and 3) to provide individual student
assessment of performance as well as data on schools and districts. The goal
of the test was to create comparable scores for all parts of the state’s
educational system. The performance of these discrete parts of the
educational system would be measured through both on-demand
assessments given once a year, and portfolios that keep track of student work

over a longer period of time.
RISE AND FALL OF CLAS

Controversy over CLAS intensified after the first round of tests was given in
Spring, 1993. Rumors quickly spread among conservative groups and parents
about the test’ s ”objectionable content.” These rumors were exacerbated by
the secrecy that shrouded the assessment—secrecy that the California
Department of Education (CDE) said was essential for retaining the integrity
of the items—it was expensive to develop many new items. Without actual
exams available, rumors increased—and with them complaints by religious
groups that the test’s content undermined parents’ moral values and invaded
the privacy of students and their families. While some parents complained
about privacy, others took issue with the open-ended nature of the
performance assessments, and the lack of “objective” scores made available by

the exam. The designers of the CLAS items had not included potential

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 2

      
    
 
 

first; ‘21; tam-$723933;

 

m a; my C: m a Va; 3% .aaf’zx [E3 10

 

 

1352.? 8“;

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  

 

 

   

L‘
.. f » A;
3 , .
x”
I L.
1-way; 7;.gmsi‘m’wi ‘3 ' i. ‘ ,
f« w N .
‘ , 1 3‘. 1
1; , t 1 1 " )'
a o . , ‘ t ’1‘} ‘ in '
‘ §Wifl$imwi hfinwamm r if.” .« n é'
é ‘ I y ,
Q‘w ‘L. . 1;. f. . ~' ‘ .
:3. 13‘? 1* u. , = ‘ 3::
CI

 

mmjixi} :15: mm: -

 

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

critics—those that represented traditional religious and conservative groups.
The specific wording of the questions had not been checked for possible
objections with audiences who might object. The CLAS example in the

appendix demonstrates the content of CLAS.

The first official response to the controversy came in January 1994 when State
Senator Gary Hart put together the CLAS reauthorization bill—SB 1273. The
new bill took four steps to deflect the criticism lodged at the tests. First, a
review panel would be appointed to ensure compliance with the intent of the
legislation. Second, past copies of the test would be provided each year for
review by the public. Along with this was a provision for school board
review of each year’s test before it was given—provided the board could
guarantee test confidentiality. Finally, to answer concerns about open-ended
assessments, the bill increased the number of fact-based multiple choice and
short answer questions to complement the performance tasks. Though the
Hart bill was an honest attempt to deal with the controversy, it would
eventually contribute to CLAS’s demise later in the year. This demise was

precipitated by events in the subsequent months.

The State Board of Education’s removal of an Alice Walker reading selection
from the 1994 test brought a firestorm of negative reaction by newspaper
editorials and groups like People for the American Way. Then the scores of
the 1993 tests were released in March, 1994. Some schools that had done well
on previous assessments had fared poorly on the new tests. Some of these
schools were in the wealthiest areas of the state. The results increased anger
on all sides. In April, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation
critical of the test’ s sampling procedures. The article claimed that there were

over 11,000 sampling violations in the 1993 test. Southern California school

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 3

     
 
   
   

am; .,;f.:s:z{::,,sa€ iiiifiiifiiflgfig

   

   

(tie '1»???wi

 

‘3‘ («any flame; 1:; Wis-Eva“:

721231“? r. 2.129%? m5"! 523;:

1‘: .§ _,..‘ «.1w
:n‘ '3'- ’31“£‘135"ig;“5$3&

   

   

 

   

       

 

   

 

$3
,2

:19i3‘fii‘ifl'flttflg 91‘“ L“ '1 7‘5; A" 1;. A. 3 x

 

Mbmhawh fir: ‘w a v , , '7‘ » ‘* f 2,

   

 

 

 

»
{afar s
‘1
‘ 4
i ‘ .‘ 5 {‘3‘
" ~‘ m. .v.
J’ [v‘ V £4}:
J' ,
. :-. . ‘x :
‘ V
! 3
"’ X. A
) ‘3
\ 1 $ ‘

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

boards in Conejo Valley and Antelope Valley opted out of the 1994 tests. A
conservative legal group—the Rutherford Foundation—filed suits on behalf
of parents in Sacramento and San Bernadino claiming the tests violated
privacy laws. The final blow of a heated month came in a scathing letter from
Del Weber, the president of the California Teachers Association (CTA), to
William Dawson, the Acting Superintendent of Public Instruction for the
California Department of Education. Weber’s letter rebuked the Department
for both its administration and design of the assessments. While ultimately
supportive of the CLAS concept, CTA’s response added to the public relations
nightmare for CDE and CLAS.

At the end of the month CDE responded. In a press release dated April 30th,
Acting State Superintendent Dawson addressed the criticism of the previous
months. Stating in strong language that all districts would be required to
administer the tests, he did note that they could create opt-out procedures for
parents who wished to do so. Defending both the confidentiality of the
assessment and the scoring procedures used in the first year, Dawson claimed
the Los Angeles Times article was inaccurate. Only 150 schools had samples
that should not have been released to the public. Nonetheless, recognizing
the controversy, Dawson vowed to have the public more involved in future
test review. Most importantly, he commissioned a scholarly review board of
testing experts, led by Stanford University professor, Lee Cronbach, to

examine sampling and other statistical issues from the 1993 tests.

In early May the Governor finally Spoke out. Emphasizing the controversy
over content and the sampling problem, Wilson called for the State Auditor
General to review CLAS fiscal issues. Secretary DiMarco called the

assessment ”seriously flawed” and “disastrous.” The response to the

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 4

 

$£§§

   
 
  

:gqua , ‘

 

“tr .’ ,7 -,
szȤ:gz::;gzza

     
   
    

gram»: Emit; m

 

W5 «‘m‘mfi 1?}?

    

'f} “.13,
*‘ ' >z .
‘5 J ,
m R i.-
. r ‘5
1?“ r ’\P a n“ ‘ V
n . A 4 4 Va' §§

 

 

[GEE %Efi{}».9%iiu3fifigfi 3p

   

 

   

       

 

'{jgifiajfijllg*fikg aKKFEiEa;'

 
   
 

     

‘ .afimua§.§ffifl§i s§§f3 §Ei€33§ ~ .; (»
I. ‘ i
. 1’.» J ‘ ‘ x V

 

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

Governor and Secretary DiMarco’s comments were swift. In a May 12th article
from the Los Angeles Times, former State Superintendent Bill Honig blasted
Wilson and his aide for jumping off the CLAS bandwagon. Implying that the
Governor did so for political gain, Honig claimed Wilson’s actions played
into the hands of extremists with an agenda. In the ensuing months the
verbal volleys back and forth between the Governor, DiMarco, and Dawson
continued. In mid-July, CDE put the 1993 test items on public View. Initial
reports were positive as many parents who had expressed fears claimed the
tests were not as bad as they originally believed. But whatever boost the
Department might have received from the public viewing was soon nullified

by the release of the expert statistical review committee’s report.

While Dawson and his Department tried to put a positive spin on it, the
report of Professor Cronbach’s group, the Committee on Sampling and
Statistical Procedures, was undeniably critical. Suggesting that operational
problems were significant in 1993, the committee recommended some
measures to ensure technical competence and quality control in future tests.
While the samples were basically sound, the committee found them poorly
implemented by the department. Regarding school site scores for 1993, the
assessment was found to have inadequate reliability, and concerns about large
standard errors led to the recommendation that future school level

assessments be administered on an experimental basis.

In his press release announcing the report, Dawson emphasized the positive,
and implied that CDE’s plan regarding both technical procedures and
individual scores was validated by the committee. But Governor Wilson and
Secretary DiMarco did not see it that way. Citing some of the conclusions of

the expert report, the Governor vetoed SB 1273 on September 27, 1994 and

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 5

     
  
 

was; rm and: W 4

 

Julia; m ifi'x’!”(:§ fifié‘fi

     

2 992122;: :“2‘? iii: $1312???

   

 

   

 

 

   

.~« ,4 ,3
.~ , ..,., , H ‘ ‘ .2" g ,
a ., ‘ m mam» firfifiifi
M"! . « \
if f 3 “NIH" ‘ f“ 3
"N“ r 'r x, , i"
V: a :91, ' .9311} k
H ; -3
A. 4" r , t ,
,t \ If} ‘ ‘ 3 x ‘
‘ w I , l
'3 r ~. in " ,1’ ~ I
r ‘A ‘3' . .1 é.“ . ;
, ' “,3 t
c r 1 ,. -.
I
‘ , ,,, , .
1 » u ,
x A . "Q
. ‘ t,
,3 . 4' ¢ .‘ 4 ,
. ,. ‘
. , ' ‘ 3
' f \ . e . . . » ~1.m
; 7;“ . " ' .‘ ; .3 . ‘
..

 
 

'6“!

.4-r‘ 4

   

Amtfifii :fliflia‘:»§éfu.,§ M Mmrm

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

called for a new statewide testing program in its place. Wilson’s veto
announcement showed the Governor moving away from his earlier
emphasis on CLAS problems of sampling and content. His focus was clear:
SB 1273 was vetoed because it failed to provide individual scores for students.
Individual scores could enhance parental responsibility and school advising.
In her comments, Secretary DiMarco claimed the new bill veered away from
the intent of the original CLAS bill—SB 662—which prioritized individual
pupil scores as the overriding goal of CLAS. What happened instead was that
in its implementation of CLAS, CDE prioritized the performance-based
aspects of the test and this decision was codified into the new bill. In a sense
the Governor and Secretary DiMarco’s comments are correct. An analysis of
the two different CLAS bills reveals many instances in which references to
individual scores have been removed or changed. Indeed, the part of SB 662
DiMarco cites regarding the primacy of individual scores—part (e) of section
60602.5—was deleted from the later bill. The ambiguity comes from a reading
of the initial language of that section which states that: “comparable
individual pupil results shall be completed prior to any expansion and
development, or both, of new performance—based assessments except to the
extent that performance—based assessments are an integral part of the system

for providing individual pupil results.” (pp. 3003) (Emphasis added.)

It can be argued that, in CDE’s judgment, performance-based assessment was
an ”integral” part of providing individual pupil results and would therefore
take priority. Certainly that is what Bill Honig believed at the time of CLAS’s
creation in 1991. Wilson and others, however, saw the priorities differently.

Given the political controversy, it is not surprising that their View won, even

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 6

 

wiafv‘iéi- a: zréfmtasa

Riiifi " "I R ‘ "Jab“; :3) vi Mt

WE’WMM “3": 134.31%?” 5.3‘:‘

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

though CLAS was supported by most major education groups in the state

including the California Teachers Association (NBA).
WHY CLAS WAS DISCONTINUED

Governor Wilson’s veto was merely the final blow to a new testing system
that had difficulties from the beginning. Certainly, political factors unique to
CLAS helped undermine it: the strength of traditional religious groups, and
perhaps the need for Wilson in a reelection year to shore up his support with
these groups. Yet, in addition to these specific factors, the CLAS case
highlights a number of more general issues regarding the politics of
assessment policy in the United States. Conflict over new performance-based
assessments is not unique to California: Virginia, Arizona, and Connecticut
have had similar controversies in the last year. The demise of CLAS offers a
constructive lesson for policymakers committed to assessment reform rooted
in performance-based testing. Three key dimensions of the CLAS case stand
out as lessons for testing policy in general: 1) the tension between political
and technical factors; 2) the divergent priorities and goals of key stakeholders;

and 3) the extent of anti-government feelings among the public.
THE TENSION BETWEEN TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS

While there is much agreement among policymakers and testing experts on
the benefits of performance-based testing, the different world of policymakers
leads technical realities to be ultimately subsumed to political ones. In the
CLAS case the political reality dictated an overly optimistic 1994 time-line for
implementation against the recommendation of those familiar with
performance-based examinations. The traditional needs for a wide scale

assessment—test validity and reliability—are more problematic given the

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 7

   
 

 
       
 

{mama 1:53:33“? ’25::

 

" WW? 2* a: {if

     

   
 
  

 

* 32:41:: ‘bfi‘iirsw 3:395: 33:23}, E ' :4.
L . 3

 

" AW {Suki—Him; M Wynn?” 1;; . >3“ , . ' 9-.

a’s‘Wiafiafirxmqn *: ‘ - ‘   ' .. t .3-

  
 
 

 

:9031w71h-‘3-5M‘: RANK?" , , - 9:. ~;‘T. ““ 1 ~

 

 

m'

wQA my}; “5*?

     
 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

state of the art of performance—based and constructed response exams.
Developing an assessment that measures the complex skills detailed in
curricular frameworks is a difficult and costly process. Making such an
assessment high stakes for students and schools—as CLAS did—raises the
ante on technical and cost issues considerably. As the statistical review
committee noted in their report, the tradeoff between cost and precision in a
performance-based exam is significant. Making scores reliable and valid for

accountability purposes is a difficult proposition.

Further, the committee noted that a design superior for assessing schools
creates difficulties for measuring individual scores. The chances of students
getting comparable forms of the test decreases with a larger sample, making
student-level accountability decisions hazardous and possibly quite unfair.
Yet CDE was expected to solve these technical problems and deliver a test
with student and school scores by 1993. CDE’s choice to push
performance-based testing at the expense of individual scores says much
about the agency’s priorities. Still, it is likely whatever choice the agency had
made would have alienated someone. Policymakers’ need for quick and
decisive action may be disastrous for performance—based reforms like CLAS
that need time and a serious discussion of the tradeoffs between cost,

precision, and accountability.
DIVERGENT PRIORITIES AND GOALS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Assessment policies, like all policies, are the creation of political coalitions.
Since the actors involved often have divergent goals for testing it is often
necessary to write legislation in vague terms or incorporate seemingly

conflicting goals into the same policy. In the California case, the three key

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 8

 

   

~¥ L $11.? Emmi . wfifimmfr $135! ‘x‘m-ifinfl

  

a

152%. amném'tvfim afim

  
   

33:12:, = ,.§-§€3;;:a azifi‘:*--~

   

   

‘ I.“ .s x in” gm- .3?
; '~.',"mn.3. J 1 43’9“

     

  
  

' S

“3521i:gififi‘l‘fii‘jr‘i an 133"»;{22 Le’l ‘. -' ‘,~‘ , s‘.‘ i"’ia£:«m

         

9.3 ggamfiwtu‘wrf

 

     

 

     

X‘QN’SL v "I ‘ u: “if r
2‘ _‘1 ‘ "k? ‘
4
,
1' I! i, L ~::’ « ’ , s n r , ; ‘
; . , . y"...‘"‘ /-,
. f 4» ‘. .. . :‘ ‘ ’1 #3 ;
r , v “ - "r” '1
n . H- i: ‘ ..
’1 A. « ‘ ~ ‘
, ‘i' ‘ ‘ , ' :E . a“
”5!... , ‘ 3 n ,, . , ~ m I V ', V ," :
MM ‘\._,~i Wu ‘ a 2 My ‘_f,~‘ ,, 9.
’ " . . | is. ' I '

 

   

w; m Ja‘

       

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

stakeholders who helped to create CLAS—Governor Wilson, State Senator
Hart, and former State Superintendent Bill Honig—all had very different
priorities for the testing program.2 Wilson’s top priority was to replace the
older CAP system with a new one that provided individual student scores.
Student data would allow for more parent awareness and stringent
accountability of teachers, an important goal of the Governor. Senator Hart—
for his part—was much more interested in holding the schools accountable
for performance. Hewing to many of the ideas of the National Governor’s
Association and other policy organizations, Hart wanted to trade the schools’
deregulation for stricter performance accountability. Finally, Bill Honig and
the state education establishment were committed to performance-based

testing and to tying assessment to the curricular frameworks.

All of these goals appear in the initial legislation. However, once
implementation of CLAS occurred, it was clear that not all of the priorities
could be accommodated. When CDE implemented a policy closest to Honig
and Hart’s vision, the Governor and others who supported his position
balked. The controversy over testing content helped strengthen the
opponents' contention that the test was ”seriously flawed.” What has not
been resolved in either California or other states speaks to the goals of
assessment policy. Should tests emphasize student or school—level
accountability? Given cost and precision factors this issue may involve a
clear tradeoff for many states. Are assessments predominantly informative
and persuasive tools to help students and teachers to perform better, or are

they regulatory instruments tied to rewards for good scores and sanctions for

 

2 Lorraine McDonnell, ”Assessment Policy as Persuasion and Regulation,” American lournal of
Education 102 (4): 394-420.

 

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State AsseSSment in California: 1993-1996 Page 9

  
 
 
  

    

$2.3m" 5:321? wmm aid “mi

«immisw. . ’

 
 

     
  
      
     

  

1}"

-1 3k “VT, I:
.zwja m; gvs<.x._£;ga’xsh

§~

    
 

 

 

       

 

   

bm1¢3>ssggmsCI-iw 11:; - w . h . mi 1;: *
£‘3§M.'§§f‘):{ , . .4
‘ . . I r "a 3": .e,‘:
' ‘léfizffiw-mdaa r a K. i ‘ . -.

    
     
 
 
  

 

.' , ‘
.3. . ,. A“ \- “1’1 1' “‘1 "MW .. ' ‘i '1: _ ’ . , , f
3‘ “,4 ,5; (-3. fixing Li I"? . +. f , . : 1.1 , - 4 : ~’ - ~‘

 

‘iiénmfi.»s‘mz‘:bW-? "‘ "

 

“msmqfirmahmqg ' ,,

 

,3, Y ".Li‘ ' a ‘ '3

 

fimbu awn

   

     

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

non-performance? These questions and others were not resolved in the

California case and led to an inevitable conflict once CLAS was implemented.

ANTI-GOVERNMENT FEELINGS

Many policymakers have been surprised by the extent of the negative reaction
to reforms like performance-based assessment and outcomes-based education.
Since many of the loudest cries have come from religious groups, they are
often dismissed as mere ”extremism.” However, this tends to ignore the
origins of much of the unrest; the extent of anti-government feeling these
complaints tap into. Nearly all the CLAS criticism has been directed at CDE
and other key figures in the state capitol. Much of this has focused on the
privacy issue. As one of the lawyers for a parents group that sued the state

put it:

”T he state has an interest in assessing the quality of teaching in the
schools. They also have an interest in knowing whether kids can

think rather than regurgitate facts. But there’s a difference between
testing a student’s ability to think and asking them what they think
about personal things. And frankly, the latter is no business of the

state.”3

The criticism did not stop at privacy concerns. The Orange County Daily
News in an editorial, railed against the ”Sacramento bureaucrats” to whom
CLAS cedes control over ”core issues of schooling.”4 The president of one of
the school boards that Opted out of CLAS claimed the concern was “not the

moral issue as much as the absence of testing basic skills.” These criticisms

 

3 Ed Cal weekly newsletter of the Association of California Administrators, May 30, 1994, p. 8.
41bid.

 

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 10

      
  

fiaxymfi M? k; 412:2!!! 3%“) might}

 
  

 

,;.;..’ ,-,::. wJ
.mm 13:} «£-

      
   
   

 

> {SM 1:43;:an

 

! .
:3 "9:3 .3 ““591va g v» .

 

     

; f

       

 

 

       

      

   

   

‘msfiaafie irrhs§:«_;-, *- : u * : ~ » n .
k r x V L \ ~ . ‘, \
C0

“ 3 .. ‘ H.
1&3 Edi}; ('5! 21‘3‘ , as, ‘ 'J-l

 

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

reflect more than just disagreement over education goals and means. Rather,
they illustrate the extent of anti-government feelings in California at the very
time reforms are trying to expand the reach of the state and persuade many of
the need to rethink traditional ways of testing. The convergence of these two
trends does not bode well for ambitious testing reform being considered in

other states. In effect, the public is being asked to reject the traditional way of

thinking about testing when they themselves do not trust the questioners.
THE RISE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT

CLAS ended with several unresolved issues and a well organized opposition
that also objected to California’s participation in the 1994 Federal law—Goals
2,000. Consequently, it is surprising that a new state assessment passed in one
year, especially since Republicans had gained enough seats to obtain a one
vote majority in the California Assembly. Each of the major roadblocks,
however, were overcome by a winning coalition of Assembly and Senate

Democrats, the Governor, education groups, and big business.

The three major issues from the CLAS debacle remained, but new approaches
were fashioned. A two-track assessment system was designed to develop
student, school level, and state assessment. The student track consists of
districts using currently available tests (such as CTBS), and the state would
provide $5 to each district for every student who took the test. Presumably,
these commercially available tests will be aligned with state curricular
frameworks and textbooks that are being revised in 1996. School and district
level assessment is to be phased in by 1998—1999 through a new instrument
that would include a balance of “basic and applied skills.” The bill’s authors

expect that ”applied skills” will include performance assessments, and basic

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 11

{25:2wa ita'zewesaa dim; babim 3M3

.A ‘ A r” ‘ "i 1'} q} i I :1

r e

 

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

skills assessment will emphasize multiple choice. In order to satisfy political
demands for more emphasis upon the basics, grade level curriculum
standards are to be formulated as a guide for teaching, and performance
levels. The state will explicitly agree upon how good is good enough for third
grade subject attainment. It is not clear how the new state assessment at the
state and local level will be aligned with individual student tests from
commercial publishers. The expectation is that both assessment tracks (state
and pupil) can be linked to the state’s curricular frameworks as well as the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

These substantive assessment changes, however, could pass the legislature if
public confidence in state government could be rebuilt after CLAS. The
Governor and conservative parent groups wanted more control over the
design and implementation of state assessments. The State Education
Department lost legitimacy during the CLAS dispute and needed to be less
prominent. Indeed, newly elected State Schools Superintendent, Delaine
Eastin, pledged to the legislature in public hearings that the State Department

staff that designed CLAS would not be involved in any new state assessment.

Two new assessment governance mechanisms were designed to provide
more gubernatorial and citizen influence, and lessen the State Education
Department’s visible role. A 21-person Commission for the Establishment of
Academic Content and Performance Standards (henceforward referred to as
the Commission) will be responsible for developing ”academically rigorous”
standards in all major subject areas, at every grade level. The majority of the

Commission, 11 of its members, will be appointed by the Governor.

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 12

 

"35935113333133 3-33.33 33333333335 333 '3: 3333333???

9333333333333 31373,} $653339;

     
   
  

  

:13 E33333 ‘mzz‘hWGQ

£3

.5???

 

333333333333 3333533333333; 3323333333 3.

 

3533.333 33 3333233 3:: 93333 33333::

»«4

#2331? 3’ i“; :3».‘.}7-:«;:"', ‘

" 3
W

 

 

   

£313”,

   

3 -’ 33:382’3‘

   

     

   

 

 

 

    

   

 

3' E ‘ (‘3 ‘hi‘: ' N i B
:, - 3 33333 ' ‘
g 3 3 3 3 i t I ‘ ‘ y}
,_ e , 3' {<53
3 3 3
'S“3~" .3 ‘ m .,~“'i .3'
33313 95" ,, ..3 . X ‘ .L ~
33 "id b35333; 333;: . ‘3 _ 3 ,
3
..
”vi—"EM” MWMRI 3.3% ‘3‘: 134m3ff33."“3§3 :3 3“ 12;: 3 3'13

   

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

The public will also participate in the approval of the tests themselves. A six-
person Statewide Pupil Assessment Review Panel will review all tests to

assure that they contain:

0 No questions about a student’s or parent’s personal beliefs about sex,

family life, morality, or religion.

0 No questions designed to evaluate personal characteristics such as

honesty, integrity, sociability, or self esteem.

A majority of this panel must be parents with children in public schools.
Legislators and local school board members can review the contents of any
approved or adopted test as long as they agree to maintain the confidentiality
of test items. Easily understood materials describing the nature and purpose
of the tests must be made available to members of the public, including

parents and students.

The new California assessment was approved by a crucial Assembly
Committee by one vote. The Governor seems satisfied and has provided
adequate funding in his recommended 1996 budget. While some of the
assessment provisions could be inconsistent, there is a rising concern about
the attainment of pupils after California finished tied with Louisiana for last
(out of 37 states) in the 1995 NAEP 4th grade reading. The new state
assessment must be comparable to the National Assessment for Education
Progress administered by the US. Department of Education, and include an
appropriate balance of types of assessment instruments including multiple-
choice, short answer questions, and applied writing skills. The state
assessment will report on grades 4, 5, 8, and 10, but performance standards

must be established for every grade level.

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 13

 

333333

3333.32.33 33333333333333.3333 23.33.3333 33:33:73.3; :33333 ”333 3

    

 

 

 

.3 33W;

 

‘1

“EA 3333:3333.) 3; 7333 been.

   

33

3 ; 3
43 $7335. ~33-

 

. ; v ‘ v ‘3
3. ‘ -,‘ ; ‘3." '3'“ ~: ‘ ”1‘3 “We“ 3‘
3 I. ; .;.‘~.‘:' ' ii}: 1. (3.} 4 .- ‘ 3' . ra.‘»}\,.‘

   

3.323333% 3. 33:33:33.3 33:33 '3

   

   

     

   

 

     

 

 

       

   

 

Wlmimfiin ‘5 ” 33:; a; v 3 31‘ ‘
‘ ‘ - 53353333333333. "33.31” 3 ~ 1.3 ; 3‘ ' 3 " “€33 3
33333333333333 ‘3”! 3333. ‘33 9“" ’ I
flfihfihm £33333 .3333;33.33.33.333 i3," f..;: ~' .33 ' -3 ‘ ‘3“: ’ 7 ‘ "
, 35333533333: 33333333313373.3323 3.33;? 13333 3.33933: - x” “ “ “ 3“"“V'
33333 £331."? ,3? v3.3. ‘1? ’ >" ’3’ ’ ” ’
$.13} ‘ '
3338333 . ‘ , r ; 3333‘2'33; , x 3 ‘ 33 W ‘
-‘ 3.;9 ;'

       

   

W33“)?! :fiirr3.-MH~333‘.’;3 333' 33333.333333-‘433‘3. .,i,,.39

     

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

The opponents will focus on preventing funds for developing the new state
assessment, but appear ready to let the individual testing proceed in 1996.
The final state assessment political battle stemming from CLAS is far from
over in California. Soon after the bill was signed by the Governor, Orange
County conservatives attacked it: ”I say kill it,” said Joan Wonsley, a Dana
Point mother of three who co-founded an anti-CLAS parent group. ”T hey
want to know what kids think. They’re getting psychological, talking about

political correctness. They’re reshaping social attitudes."5

State assessments contain issues that are high stakes politics—what
knowledge is most worth knowing.6 Institutionalizing new forms of
assessment will require public trust and public understanding, but this will
require more than top—down state level political marketing and campaigning.
California’s experience suggests that an elite professional alliance cannot both
set the agenda for reform and persuade the public that their agenda is best.
But merely responding to what the public desires does not capitalize on
research and the growing assessment knowledge base of professional
educators. Somehow education leaders must find a middle ground that
bridges grass roots opinion and improved assessment concepts. This will
require more than engagement or interactions between the public and
professional educators. New assessments should entail guidance and
leadership combined with a grasp of how the public interprets the various

messages that they hear about testing.

 

5 John Gittelsohn, ”All Aren't Hailing CLAS Replacement,” Orange County Reporter, October
15, 1995, p.3.

6 See Michael W. Kirst, ”The Politics of Nationalizing Curricular Content,” American lournal
of Education 102 (4): 383-393.

The Rise, Fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California: 1993-1996 Page 14

   

 

sum mm: m imfifloq

 

a}

 

 

 

   

Q17§2L§£211L3n3213

J
1
1
4
<1

 

U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

H||\||H!| H HII‘I "I1

CLLHEHNJ'Ha