1981Phi Delta KappanRequires access

NIE Clarification Hearing: The Negative Team's Case.

George F. Madaus

Open publisher page 12 citations

Abstract

The National Institute of Education hearing on minimum competency testing (MCT) provided a unique oppor tunity to explore the assumptions on which MCT policy is frequently based and to focus on the effects of that policy on students, teachers, and U.S. education in general. In this paper I shall outline the case developed and presented by the nega tive or con team at the hearing. Space does not permit me to comment on the case presented by the pro team, nor does it permit reflections on what happened at the hearing or in the evaluation process itself. The case that was developed and pre sented at the hearing was truly a team ef fort.* From the outset, team members were quite concerned about the connota tions associated with the adjectives negative and con, which were used to describe our team. These labels proved to be a burden. Despite the fact that the limits of the hearing and the definition of MCT under debate were narrowly drawn, the team labels conveyed to many an im age of opposition to all forms of MCT and ? worse still ? an anti-testing image.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The National Institute of Education hearing on minimum competency testing (MCT) provided a unique oppor tunity to explore the assumptions on which MCT policy is frequently based and to focus on the effects of that policy on students, teachers, and U.S. education in general. In this paper I shall outline the case developed and presented by the nega tive or con team at the hearing. Space does not permit me to comment on the case presented by the pro team, nor does it permit reflections on what happened at the hearing or in the evaluation process itself. The case that was developed and pre sented at the hearing was truly a team ef fort.* From the outset, team members were quite concerned about the connota tions associated with the adjectives negative and con, which were used to describe our team. These labels proved to be a burden. Despite the fact that the limits of the hearing and the definition of MCT under debate were narrowly drawn, the team labels conveyed to many an im age of opposition to all forms of MCT and ? worse still ? an anti-testing image.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The National Institute of Education hearing on minimum competency testing (MCT) provided a unique oppor tunity to explore the assumptions on which MCT policy is frequently based and to focus on the effects of that policy on students, teachers, and U.S. education in general. In this paper I shall outline the case developed and presented by the nega tive or con team at the hearing. Space does not permit me to comment on the case presented by the pro team, nor does it permit reflections on what happened at the hearing or in the evaluation process itself. The case that was developed and pre sented at the hearing was truly a team ef fort.* From the outset, team members were quite concerned about the connota tions associated with the adjectives negative and con, which were used to describe our team. These labels proved to be a burden. Despite the fact that the limits of the hearing and the definition of MCT under debate were narrowly drawn, the team labels conveyed to many an im age of opposition to all forms of MCT and ? worse still ? an anti-testing image.

Key concepts: Opposition (politics), Psychology, Public relations, Pedagogy, Political science, Law, Politics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
NIE Clarification Hearing: The Negative Team's Case. — Research Paper | ScholarLens