State Minimum Competency Testing Programs: Analysis of State Minimum Competency Testing Programs. Final Report
Guardat en:
| Publicat a: | ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) (Feb 28, 1980), p. 1-65 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Publicat: | |
| Matèries: | |
| Accés en línia: | Citation/Abstract |
| Etiquetes: |
Sense etiquetes, Sigues el primer a etiquetar aquest registre!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 63697494 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 035 | |a 63697494 | ||
| 045 | 0 | |b d19800228 | |
| 084 | |a ED190675 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pipho, Chris | |
| 245 | 1 | |a State Minimum Competency Testing Programs: Analysis of State Minimum Competency Testing Programs. Final Report | |
| 260 | |c Feb 28, 1980 | ||
| 513 | |a Report | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a The movement towards state-mandated minimum competency testing peaked in 1977-1978. Activity now centers on implementation: most programs will be implemented by 1980-81. To initiate programs, twenty-four states have used the state board approach, 20 enacted legislation, and six have passed both board and legislation mandates. Only Maine, Kansas, and Florida have repealed or modified their programs but court decisions in other states may alter or slow programs. State boards and departments of education are now involving advisory committees, taking care that standard setting is not arbitrary. Departments of education are primarily responsible for test construction or selection, although board approval is necessary. There is a trend toward school district inservice training for test interpretation. States now uniformly test grades 3, 5-6, 8-9, and 9-10, reflecting an emphasis on an early warning system. The diploma sanction, popular in 1975-77, is now less important, partly because states are concerned about litigation. Generally, state legislation mandates testing of basic skills: reading, writing, and arithmetic; boards are more likely to require daily living skills. Less uniformity exists on communication skills. Litigation potential, legislation and board overlap, and politics, make it hard to compare implementation. (State implementation charts are appended). (CP) | |
| 653 | |a Academic Standards | ||
| 653 | |a Board of Education Role | ||
| 653 | |a Disabilities | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Trends | ||
| 653 | |a Elementary Secondary Education | ||
| 653 | |a Graduation Requirements | ||
| 653 | |a Minimum Competencies | ||
| 653 | |a Minimum Competency Testing | ||
| 653 | |a Program Implementation | ||
| 653 | |a Remedial Instruction | ||
| 653 | |a School Districts | ||
| 653 | |a State Boards of Education | ||
| 653 | |a State Departments of Education | ||
| 653 | |a State Legislation | ||
| 653 | |a State Programs | ||
| 653 | |a State School District Relationship | ||
| 653 | |a Student Promotion | ||
| 653 | |a Test Construction | ||
| 653 | |a Test Selection | ||
| 653 | |a Testing Programs | ||
| 773 | 0 | |t ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) |g (Feb 28, 1980), p. 1-65 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t ERIC | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/63697494/abstract/embedded/L8HZQI7Z43R0LA5T?source=fedsrch |