Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T09:25:36.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Extract

From the beginning, public tests and examinations were instruments of policy. The Imperial Chinese examination was created to permit the emperor to replace the patronage system by which powerful lords were choosing their own candidates to be mandarins. The Jesuit schools in 17th-century France introduced a weekly testing system to allow central control of classroom teaching. In 19th-century England, Thomas Macaulay argued for employing the Chinese principle in selecting cadets for the Indian Civil Service; a similar system was later used for the British Civil Service. A primary school examination system was set up in England at the end of the 19th century to serve the same purpose of achieving quality control and accountability in public schools as was proposed for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that is being bitterly disputed in 21st-century United States. Chauncey's primary goal after World War II in developing the Scholastic Achievement Test for admission to elite U.S. universities was to replace the children of the wealthy establishment with highly qualified students who would see their role as contributing to public service.

Type
Introduction
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Davies, A. (1997). Australian immigrant gatekeeping through English language tests: How important is proficiency? In Huhta, A., Kohonon, V., Kurki-Suonio, L., & Luoma, S. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96 (pp. 7184). Jyväskylä, Finland: Kopijyva Oy, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. (1890). The element of chance in competitive examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 53, 644663.Google Scholar
Latham, H. (1877). On the action of examinations considered as a means of selection. Cambridge, England: Deighton, Bell.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict. Language Policy, 4 (4), 351370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milani, T. M. (2008). Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language and Society, 37 (1), 2759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1993). The power of tests: The impact of language tests on teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1967). Do they know enough English? In Wigglesworth, David (Ed.), ATESL selected conference papers. Washington, DC: NAFSA Studies and Papers, English Language Series.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar