Lost in translation: Ever changing and competing purposes for national examinations in the Czech Republic

• Authors: D. Greger , E. Kifer
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In reaction to central control of schooling by the Soviet Union, the Czech Republic countered with what some say was the most decentralized system in Europe. While the political move to democracy was extraordinarily successful, there were numerous governments between 1989 and the present. The combination of the decentralized control of schooling and lack of continuity in the political realm in regard to education lengthened substantially the amount of time it has taken to mount national assessments. Those assessments, 5th and 9th grade and a high school leaving examination, are now on track but not without political and technical barriers.

Keywords

EN

Czech Republic; education policy development; testing; assessment characteristic; Maturita; misclassifications

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Pedagogy
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 43-81

Dates

published

2012-01-01

online

2012-08-21

Contributors

author

D. Greger

• Faculty of Education, Institute for Research and Development of Education, Charles University in Prague, Myslíková 7, Praha 1, 110 00, Czech Republic

author

E. Kifer

• College of Education, University of Kentucky, 510 McCubbing Drive, Lexington KY 40503, USA

References

• Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002a). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
• Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002b). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic performance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP Test results in states with high school graduation exams. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-126-EPRU.pdf
• Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002c). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-125-EPRU.pdf
• Bîrzea, C. (1996). Educational reform and power struggles in Romania. European Journal of Education, 31(1), 97-107.
• Carnoy, M., Loeb, S. & Smith, T. L. (2000). Do higher state test scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Catterall, J. S. (1989). Standards and school dropouts: A national study of tests required for graduation. American Journal of Education, 98(1), 1 - 34.[Crossref]
• Čerych, L., Kotásek, J., Kovařovic, J. & Švecová, J. (2000). The Education reform process in the Czech Republic. In Strategies for Educational Reform: From Concept to Realisation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing
• Chvál, M., Greger, D., Walterová, E. & Černý, K. (2009) Testování žáků na konci základní školy a státní maturita - aktuální otázky současné vzdělávací politiky. Orbis scholae, 3(3), 79-102.
• Clarke, M., Haney, W. & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion. The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, 1(3). Retrieved June, 20, 2012, from http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/publications/v1n3.html
• Clements, S. & Kifer, E. (2001). Talking back. Frankfort, KY: Long-Term Policy Research Center.
• Greger, D. & Walterová, E. (Eds.) (2012). Towards educational change: The Transformation of educational systems in post - communist countries. New York: Routledge.
• Eckstein, M.A. & Noah, H.J. (1989). Forms and functions of secondary - school - leaving examinations. Comparative Education Review, 33(3), 295-316.
• Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/part1.htm
• Haertel, E. H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 18(4), 5-9.
• Herman, J. L. & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 20 - 25, 41 - 42.
• Hoffman, R. G. (2002). The Accuracy of students' novice, apprentice, proficient, and distinguished classifications for the 2001 and 2002 Kentucky Core Content Tests. Frankfort KY: Kentucky State Department of Education. Final Report, HumRRO FR-02-46
• Hoffman, R. G., Thacker, A. A. & Wise, L. L. (2000). The Accuracy of students' novice, apprentice, proficient, and distinguished classifications for the 2000 Kentucky Core Content Test. Frankfort KY: Kentucky State Department of Education. Final Report, HumRRO FR-03-06
• Hoffman, R. G. & Wise, L.L. (2003). The accuracy of school classifications for the 2002 accountability cycle of the Kentucky commonwealth accountability testing system. Frankfort KY: Kentucky State Department of Education. Final Report, HumRRO FR-00-41
• Hout, M. & Elliott, S.W. (2011). Incentives and test - based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Ketter, J. & Pool, J. (2001). Exploring the impact of a high-stakes direct writing assessment in two high school classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(3), 344 - 393.
• Kifer, E. (1994). Development of the Kentucky instructional results information system (KIRIS). Guskey, T. (ed.) High stakes performance assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Kifer, E. (2001). Large-scale assessment: Dimensions, dilemmas and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Koretz, D. M. & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky instructional results information system (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation
• Kotásek, J. (2005). Vzdělávací politika a rozvoj školství v České republice po roce 1989 - 1. časť. Technológia vzdelávania, (3), 7-11.
• Kotásek, J., Greger, D. & Procházková, I. (2004). Demand for schooling in the Czech republic (Country Report for OECD). Retrieved March 24, 2011, from
• OECD 1996. Reviews of national policies for education. Czech Republic. Paris: OECD.
• Linn, R. L. (2003). Requirements for measuring adequate yearly progress. CRESST Policy Brief - National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, winter 2003, 6, 1-4.
• Linn, R. L. & Baker, E. (1999). Absolutes, wishful thinking, and norms. The CRESST Line - Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Fall 1999, 1-8.
• Linn, R. L. & Baker, E. (2000). Closing the gap. The CRESST Line - Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Fall 2000, 1-8.
• Linn, R. L., Baker, E. & Herman J. L. (2002). No child left behind. The CRESST Line - Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Spring 2002, 1-6.
• Linn, R. L. & Herman J. L. (1997). A policymaker's guide to standards-led assessment. Denver CO: Educational Commission of the States and the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
• Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) 2001. National Programme for the Development of Education in the Czech Republic. White Paper. Prague: ÚIV, Tauris.
• OECD. 1996. Reviews of national policies for education. Czech Republic. Paris: OECD.
• Orfield, G. & Kornhaber, M. L. (eds.) (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers?: Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. Washington D.C.: The Century Foundation Press.
• Robitaille, D. (Ed.). (1997). National contexts for mathematics and science education. Pacific Educational Press, Vancouver: Canada
• Rogosa, D. (1999). How accurate are the STAR national percentile rank scores for individual students? - An interpretive guide. Retrieved June, 12, 2012, from http://wwwstat.stanford.edu/~rag/ed351/drrguide.pdf
• Santiago, P., Gilmore, A., Nusche, D. & Sammons, P. (2012). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Czech Republic. Main Conclusions. Paris: OECD.
• Scriven, M. (1993). Hard - Won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 58, 1-107.
• Shepard, L.A. (1989, April). Inflated test score gains: Is it old norms or teaching the test? effects of testing project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED334204&ERICExtSearchSearchType_0=no&accno=ED334204
• Shepard, L.A. & Dougherty, K. C. (1991). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED337468&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED337468
• ÚIV. 1999. Priority pro českou vzdělávací politiku. Praha: Tauris.
• Voke, H. (2002). What do we know about sanctions and rewards? Retrieved June, 12, 2012, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/oct02/num31/toc.aspx
• Young, J. M. & Yoon, B. (1998). Estimating the consistency and accuracy of classifications in a standards-referenced assessment. Retrieved June, 12, 2012, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TECH475.pdf

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10159-012-0003-y