Do not build constructed-response endorsement tests
The advice. “This creates a lot of work, will be hard to do, and will be expensive; suggest that this isn’t necessary.”
The committee advised against OEE’s proposal to develop constructed-response item test forms for the optional science and social studies disciplinary endorsements.
Why. Nine additional endorsement tests — biology, chemistry, Earth and space science, physics, physical science, civics, economics, geography, history — each requiring item development, rubric development, standard setting, and human scoring capacity. All of it for fields whose examinee volumes are, by construction, smaller than the base tests that already struggle to reach 100 examinees per form. See MTTC Meaningfully Different Forms.
OEE’s own stated difficulty was the specificity CRIs require, and it came to the committee asking for other options. The committee gave four: Consider transcript review to verify coursework, Use higher conjunctive cut scores on the existing test, Build one open-ended prompt from a randomly selected standard, Give districts an interview guide instead of a test.
Status. Declined — the committee’s recommendation is against the proposal as put. The underlying need is unresolved and depends on Define the purpose of the endorsement assessment.