Response to Clemans

Clemans (1993) argued that the use of item response theory (IRT) to vertically scale Form E of the California Achievement Tests produces inappropriate results. In this response we show that (a) Cleman's analysis of school district data was incomplete, inconsistent, and did not follow good measurement practice; (b) the simulation he conducted was unfairly stacked against IRT, was unrealistic, and ignored other realistic published simulations that demonstrated the accuracy of IRT scaling procedures; (c) his "common sense" evaluations of student performance ignored basic facts about the measurement of student achievement; and (d) the concerns expressed in his article were irrelevant to the vast majority of uses of norm-referenced tests.     

Response to intervention

This introduction provides a context for the other articles included in this volume. The Learning Disabilities Initiative, a multiyear effort at the Office of Special Education Programs, has been focused on a more efficient and effective process for determining specific learning disability eligibility.     

Response to Disability

Teacher development has emerged over the last decade as an identifiable area of study and much has been written on the subject. The teacher development literature has served to disseminate information on and ideas for improving teachers' and, by extension, schools' performance. It has provided the forum for discussion about the future of the teaching profession and the nature of teaching as a job. Yet, as an area of study, teacher development tends for the most part to be dominated by issues, while the concept itself and the methods that may effect teacher development remain comparatively neglected. In the teacher development literature, for example, very few definitions of teacher development may be found. This article examines the concept of teacher development and presents the author's own interpretation and definition, as well as her views on how the development of this area of study ought to proceed.     

Response to Letter

No abstract available for this article.