NAEP and Policy: Chasing the Tail of the Assessment Tiger
Saved in:
| Title: | NAEP and Policy: Chasing the Tail of the Assessment Tiger |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Diket, Read M., Brewer, Thomas M. |
| Source: | Arts Education Policy Review. 2011 112(1):35-47. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2011 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Visual Arts, Art Education, National Competency Tests, Educational Policy, Policy Analysis, Politics of Education, Educational Assessment, Teacher Role |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | National Assessment of Educational Progress |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10632913.2011.518126 |
| ISSN: | 1063-2913 |
| Abstract: | This paper grabs hold of the "assessment tiger" by considering the history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) "Arts Report Cards" for the visual arts, which were constructed and have been administered four times within thirty-five years. Two purposes of the NAEP have persisted since its founding: (1) measuring learning and (2) developing expectations for change and reform in education from a national platform. These purposes provided the basis for a functional analysis derived from Efland (1976) that looked closely at the NAEP's collaborative context, consensus building, and block content. Hamblen's 1995 critical theory analysis exemplar also serves as a means for reviewing the politics of assessment, influences on policy directions, and curricular emphases within a subject area. Using Persky's 2004 critical evaluation of the 1997 NAEP Arts Assessment, this article considers recommendations she derived from the 1997 NAEP "Arts Report Card" that guided the 2008 NAEP construction and administration. The 2008 NAEP "Arts Report Card," released in June 2009, informs a number of initial interpretations, recommendations, implications, and applications for those who want to "own" the tiger. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 31 |
| Entry Date: | 2010 |
| Accession Number: | EJ906018 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This paper grabs hold of the "assessment tiger" by considering the history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) "Arts Report Cards" for the visual arts, which were constructed and have been administered four times within thirty-five years. Two purposes of the NAEP have persisted since its founding: (1) measuring learning and (2) developing expectations for change and reform in education from a national platform. These purposes provided the basis for a functional analysis derived from Efland (1976) that looked closely at the NAEP's collaborative context, consensus building, and block content. Hamblen's 1995 critical theory analysis exemplar also serves as a means for reviewing the politics of assessment, influences on policy directions, and curricular emphases within a subject area. Using Persky's 2004 critical evaluation of the 1997 NAEP Arts Assessment, this article considers recommendations she derived from the 1997 NAEP "Arts Report Card" that guided the 2008 NAEP construction and administration. The 2008 NAEP "Arts Report Card," released in June 2009, informs a number of initial interpretations, recommendations, implications, and applications for those who want to "own" the tiger. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1063-2913 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10632913.2011.518126 |
