Minimum Competency Testing Programs Research Articles

Assessments and Accountability

Use of tests and assessments as key elements in five waves of educational reform during the past 50 years are reviewed. These waves include the role of tests in tracking and selection emphasized in the 1950s, the use of tests for program accountability in the 1960s, minimum competency testing programs of the 1970s, school and district accountability of the 1980s, and the standards-based accountability systems of the 1990s. Questions regarding the impact, validity, and generalizability of reported gains, and the credibility of results in high-stakes accountability uses are discussed. Emphasis is given to three issues regarding currently popular accountability systems. These are (a) the role of content standards, (b) the dual goals of high performance standards and common standards for all students, and (c) the validity of accountability models. Some suggestions for dealing with the most severe limitations of accountability are provided.

Assessments and Accountability

Use of tests and assessments as key elements in five waves of educational reform during the past 50 years are reviewed. These waves include the role of tests in tracking and selection emphasized in the 1950s, the use of tests for program accountability in the 1960s, minimum competency testing programs of the 1970s, school and district accountability of the 1980s, and the standards-based accountability systems of the 1990s. Questions regarding the impact, validity, and generalizability of reported gains, and the credibility of results in high-stakes accountability uses are discussed. Emphasis is given to three issues regarding currently popular accountability systems. These are (a) the role of content standards, (b) the dual goals of high performance standards and common standards for all students, and (c) the validity of accountability models. Some suggestions for dealing with the most severe limitations of accountability are provided.

Minimum Competency Testing: Assessing the Effects of Assessment

Abstract Minimum Competency Testing (MCT) is an attempt to establish minimal acceptable levels for educational attainment. MCT is mired in controversy. This research aimed to answer five principal questions: 1) Has MCT increased academic performance among high school students? 2) Does MCT, over time, affect achievement? 3) What role does remediation play in the potential for academic improvement of students in MCT programs? 4) Does MCT differentially and negatively affect achievement among minority students? And 5) Does MCT implementation increase the likelihood of dropping out of school? Based upon this research the following conclusions were advanced. MCT differentially affected high and low achievers. While MCT serves to decrease the likelihood of a student scoring in the lowest academic categories, it does so at the expense of those who might score in the highest. The presence of these requirements also serves to decrease the likelihood of a student scoring in the highest categories. Thus, MCT by rais...

Characteristics of Middle Grades Schools Implementing Minimum Competency Testing Programs

This study describes the relationship between school-level minimum competency testing (MCT) programs in middle grade schools as identified in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (1983-8...

School Competency Testing Reforms and Student Achievement: Exploring a National Perspective

This study investigates the relationship between school-level minimum competency testing (MCT) programs and student reading proficiency as measured by the 1983–1984 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Comparisons of student-level proficiency out-comes within race/ethnic groups (White, Black, and Hispanic) were made after adjusting for individual and school-level variables for the 4th-, 8th-, and 11th- grade NAEP samples. In general, results indicated a higher level of proficiency among students in Grades 8 and 11 attending schools with MCT programs compared with their counterparts in schools without such programs. No advantage of attending such schools was identified for students in Grade 4.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINIMUM COMPETENCY TESTING PROGRAMS AND STUDENTS' READING PROFICIENCY: IMPLICATIONS FROM THE 1983–84 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS IN READING AND WRITING

ABSTRACTExploratory studies presented in this report used multilevel data obtained in the 1983–84 National Assessment of Educational Progress to investigate the relationship between minimum competency testing (MCT) programs and student reading proficiency. A “school effects” paradigm was used in Study 1 to assess the effect of a school‐level MCT program after adjusting for students' age, sex, region of the country, family background, school‐level composition, and socioeconomic status, students' academic behaviors, school‐level remedial program, and instructional dollars per pupil. Within‐race/ethnic group analyses were conducted to investigate whether or not the effect of MCT programs on reading proficiency was similar for each race/ethnic group. The second study examined the relationship between the type of state testing program and reading proficiency for each grade cohort after adjusting for students' age, sex, district and school‐level SES variables, family background, and race. These studies demonstrate the limits and potential of using NAEP data to inform public policy issues.

Setting Passing Scores on Competency Tests

To date, 40 states have mandated minimum competency testing programs for students, and more than 30 have mandated com petency tests for teachers, administrators, and/or other educa tional personnel. This writer reviews a dozen basic questions about passing scores on these various tests, considering what is actually being done versus what should be done with reference to testing practices.

Beyond Standardization: State Standards and School Improvement

The Elementary School Journal Volume 85, Number 3 ? 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/85/8503-0003$01 .00 State policies intended to improve education generally try either to set educational standards or to shape the educational process. Although states also seek to improve education through the allocation of funds, in recent years they have placed more emphasis on regulation-setting standards in the form of tests to be passed or educational procedures to be followed. Some policies are targeted on students; others, on teachers. The policies, of course, also affect schools, school systems, and, in certain cases, schools of education. In this paper, however, we focus on how policies affect the teacher-learner relationship as it occurs in classrooms.

School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature

School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature

Effects of minimum competency testing for minority students: A review of expectations and outcomes

As a new approach to educational accountability, minimum competency testing (MCT) has created considerable controversy. While its supporters believe that the new policy will be of particular value to students from minority and low-income backgrounds, critics are concerned about the possible adverse consequences for these groups. A review of research evidence and results of statewide MCT programs indicate that there is a substantial discrepancy between the initial test performances of black students and their white classmates and that, in some cases, post-test remediation seems relatively ineffective for blacks. Moreover, blacks may be receiving a disproportionate share of all diploma sanctions imposed on repeated MCT failers. It is proposed that some problems currently associated with competency testing can be avoided by emphasizing the remedial rather than the punitive function of these programs.

The application of minimum competency testing to deaf students.

This article highlights literature on minimum competency testing, with particular emphasis on the application of such testing programs to deaf students. General background information regarding the nature of minimum competency testing programs is provided, as well as an identification of major issues regarding implementation and use of testing procedures. Information regarding the development of minimum competency testing programs for deaf students in Florida is given, along with a report on the status of its application. Recommendations concerning implementation are offered.

Individualizing minimum competency testing for learning-disabled students.

With almost 40 states currently developing or implementing some form of minimum competency testing (MCT), the issues involved in including special education students in these testing programs have received a great deal of attention. Most of the articles addressing this area have focused on the identification of problem areas and possible infringements on students' rights. Few have described strategies and options for individualizing the decision-making process for testing learning-disabled students. During the 1981-82 school year, the Louisiana State Department of Education began implementing one of the most ambitious testing programs in the country. Beginning with the second grade, a test of basic skills mastery will be administered to students, with a grade level added each year until all grade 2 through 12 students are tested annually. Scores on the state test are the principal criteria for grade-to-grade promotion. Each local education agency submits a Pupil Progression Plan outlining how Basic Skills Test scores and other factors (such as attendance, teacher observation, and local test scores) will be considered for promotion. Students who do not achieve the required minimum scores will receive state-funded compensatory/remedial education. Like most educational programs developed for regular education, the problems of fitting special education students in the Basic Skills Test policies and procedures have been complex. Some state and local minimum competency testing programs have excluded special education students (or students with certain special education classifications); the policies and procedures for the Louisiana Basic Skills Test emphasize individual needs, regardless of special education classification.

Performance of Handicapped Students in a Competency Testing Program

An issue surrounding Minimum Competency Testing (MCT) is the participation of handicapped students. Using data from the North Carolina Competency Test, samples of handicapped and nonhandicapped pupils were compared on the following: initial MCT performance, participation in remediation, improvements in subsequent MCT, and eligibility for receiving high school diplomas. It was determined that nonhandicapped pupils generally fared better than the handicapped on all measures. However, sharp differences were found across categories of exceptionality, with results for learning-disabled and physically impaired students approaching those of the nonhandicapped sample. Findings for educable mentally retarded (EMR) pupils showed weak initial performances, high rates of school withdrawal after a MCT failure, and repeated MCT failure among those who remained in school. It is concluded that EMR students should, at a minimum, be provided with intensive remediation to achieve MCT mastery. Under the best of circumstances, however, it seems unlikely that a majority of EMR pupils could pass a high school MCT. It is suggested that MCT programs continue to include most exceptionalities, while exempting the mentally retarded.

LINKING TESTING AND INSTRUCTION: POLICY ISSUES

We would not be surprised if many readers were to question the need for a special issue of JEM devoted to Testing and Instruction. After all, skeptics might reasonably argue, it is a truism that the content of standardized achievement tests-the focus of this issue-must be linked to instruction if meaningful inferences about performance are to be made. Further, they might contend that a central tenet of the evaluation movement is the need to gather information about student achievement using tests directly linked to educational objectives and instruction. Obviously, our skeptics are correct. Why then this special issue? The reason is that standardized achievement testing is no longer concerned primarily with issues directly related to classroom practice and to the use of results by teachers. Increasingly, standardized achievement tests are being used for a host of policy-oriented purposes: assessing educational equity; providing evidence on school and program effectiveness; allocating compensatory funds to school districts; evaluating teacher effectiveness; accrediting school districts; classifying students for remediation; and certifying successful completion of high school or a given grade of elementary school. Linking testing to instruction generally is not a major problem for individual teachers, thanks partly to sensitive teacher judgment about the relevance of test items to the content of instruction in their classroom and partly to many textbook publishers who now provide integrated teaching/testing/curriculum packages. When standardized tests were used primarily by teachers, the problem of the sensitivity of the test to actual classroom instruction was not a major issue. Generally, the results were not terribly important and seldom were major decisions made on the basis of the results. However, when achievement test results are intended to inform extra-classroom policy decisions where there is the potential for serious harm either to individuals or programs, then the problems of linking testing and instruction become acute. It is the increased use of achievement test results in the policy sphere, much less than the use of test results by classroom teachers, which makes this special issue so pertinent. Our task is to provide an overview of the issues associated with the problem of linking testing and instruction. First we describe two general policy areas which have prompted concern about these links: studies of school and program effectiveness and minimum competency testing programs used for pupil certification. While other policy issues noted above are important, space does not permit a discussion of each. However, the points associated with the two areas we shall deal with are also pertinent to these other issues. Second, we shall describe techniques that have been used to investigate links between tests and instruction. Finally, we shall address a number of educational and policy issues that arise from efforts to link tests and instruction.

Effects of Test Modifications on the Minimum Competency Performance of Learning Disabled Students

Fueled by significant decreases in student achievement and general discontent with the American educational system, minimum competency testing (MCT) is viewed by many as the last chance to bring about educational accountability and to force changes in student performance. For special education students, testing of minimum competence is both a blessing and a bane. In view of the characteristics of this population of students, the anticipated benefits of system accountability must be weighed against the disadvantages and potential harm resulting from official documentation of failure to achieve minimum competence. To address the issues which surround minimum competency testing of exceptional students, officials in a number of states have chosen to exempt handicapped children from testing. Others have addressed the problem by permitting modifications in testing instruments and procedures to be part of the MCT program for special education students. In the state of Florida, for example, the use of auditory aids (e.g., tape-recorded versions of appropriate parts of a test) as well as situational modifications (e.g., flexible scheduling, settings, and answerrecording systems) are part of the statewide MCT program. Furthermore, students in Florida may also be administered modified versions of the State Student Assessment Test (SSAT). The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of several test modifications on the performance of third-grade learning disabled (LD) students. The grade 3 SSAT was designed to measure student achievement of desirable minimum standards in reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. Specifically, vocabulary, reading comprehension, logical thinking, and study skills are measured on the reading portions of the test. Spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and organizational skills are measured by the writing standards included in the SSAT, while number concepts, addition, subtraction, measurement, and solution of word problems are assessed by the mathematics standards. The changes under investigation in the present study included modifications of line length, item groupings, answer formats, and administration procedures, as well as alterations of the general physical layout and graphic representations of the test. The content (i.e., state standards assessed) of the SSAT (Grade 3) test was not altered in this research; test items were simply reformatted and rearranged to prepare a different-looking test. Three specific questions were of interest:

Performance Gains in a Competency Test Program

One of the major goals of the Minimum Competency Testing (MCT) programs that have been implemented in recent years is the enhancement of students' academic skills. By setting precise standards and by matching pupils' performances against those standards, it is hoped that Competency Tests will provide a basis for the diagnosis and remediation of academic deficiencies (Cohen & Haney, 1980; Haney & Madaus, 1978). Some observers believe that the positive effects of competency testing are already evident in the schools. For example, Fisher (1980) claims that standardized test gains registered by students in several Florida districts are a byproduct of that state's MCT program. Thus far, however, little if any hard evidence linking academic improvement to competency testing has been reported.

Competency Testing: What Role Should Teachers of Composition Play?

As funding for public education continues to decrease, and as complaints about the quality of public education continue to increase, state education policy makers have accelerated their efforts to establish statewide testing of students' literacy skills. The minimum competency testing movement has many vocal supporters, including back to basics advocates who demand more rigorous academic skills; accountability advocates who want more efficient, more cost-effective schools; and students (and their parents) who file educational malpractice suits against school systems which have not provided them with adequate educations.' Conspicuously absent among these groups of advocates are teachers, whose efforts seem to be directed at ignoring or at obstructing the movement.2 Yet composition teachers who have rejected minimum competency testing programs or who are still debating about them are rapidly finding their students engulfed by them as legislators and administrators extend their control over public education. At the present time, thirty-five states have already passed or are considering passing legislation which mandates statewide testing of secondary and postsecondary students' writing skills, and many school systems are beginning programs without state mandates.3 At the postsecondary level, composition teachers' involvement with minimum competency testing often consists solely of administering schoolwide placement or proficiency tests. Very few of us participate in the development of the standards used to determine college-level writing competence; even fewer are involved in the creation or the selection of the tests for our schools. At many colleges, minimum competency tests are designed by test development committees composed of testing specialists and administrators rather than of classroom teachers. Such people may create or select tests which do not correspond to the curricula or to the competencies taught or deemed important by writing teachers. Furthermore, test development committees are often hindered by severe budgetary and temporal constraints and

Minimum Competency Testing: Cautions on the State of the Art

Approximately 17 states have now, or soon will have, a minimum competency testing program (MCT) that requires that a student pass an MCT to receive a high school diploma and in some jurisdictions to advance to the next grade. In this paper, four problems inherent in using an MCT to make these types of decisions are discussed: (1) the lack of a defensible means of setting a passing score, (2) the measurement error associated with test scores, (3) the adverse impact on minority and handicapped students, and (4) the lack of evidence of the MCTs' validity for the decisions being made. Numerous studies and examples both from education and other areas where similar problems arise are presented. The appropriate uses of testing in an overall program are discussed, particularly the use of multiple indicators, of which MCTs can be one, to make important decisions about individuals and allowance for an MCT result to be overruled or dismissed if the weight of the evidence from the other indicators runs counter to the MCT result.

Assessment of Minimum Competency in Fifth Grade Learning Disabled Students: Test Modifications Make a Difference

AbstractApproximately 350 fifth grade learning disabled students were administered modified versions of their state’s minimum competency exam. The test modifications included enlarged print, altered item order, unjustified lines in reading passages, and a higher example/item ratio. Comparisons of students’ performance on the modified versions of the test were made; additionally, data from similar students tested with standard versions of the minimum competency test were analyzed. In general, learning disabled students performed well on the modified tests; performance on regular-print and large-print versions were similar. Implications for future accommodation of handicapped students in minimum competency testing programs are discussed.

Inception to Implementation

The author describes how a minimum competency testing program was developed and implemented in one Illinois school district.