representative informed it that the requested materials were “under the control and supervision” of its client states and that the committee should seek information directly from the state agencies (R.Allen, NES, correspondence, September 4, 1999).
Following the tenets of the 1999 standards, the committee then requested the following data from several state agencies (D.Z.Robinson, committee chair, correspondence, August 8, 2000):
…technical information on state licensing tests, including the processes involved in the tests’ development (including job analysis and the means by which job analyses are translated into tests), technical information related to scoring, interpretation and evidence of validity and reliability, scaling and norming, guidelines of test administration and interpretation, and the means by which passing scores are determined…sufficient documentation to support judgments about the technical quality of the test, the resulting scores, and the interpretations based on the test scores.
In communications with the states, at least two state agencies reported their understanding that the requested technical information could not be disclosed to the committee because of restrictions included in their contracts with NES. Colorado’s Office of Professional Services, for example, pointed the committee to the following contract language (E.J.Campbell, Colorado Office of Professional Service, correspondence, September 19, 2000):
Neither the Assessment, nor any records, documents, or other materials related to its development and administration may be made available to the general public, except that nonproprietary information, such as test objectives and summary assessment results may be publicly disseminated by the State. Except as provided above and as contemplated by Paragraph 15, or as required by a court of competent jurisdiction or other governmental agency or authority, neither the State nor the Contractor, or its respective subcontractor(s), employees, or agents may reveal to any persons(s) any part of the Assessment, any part of the information collected during the Project, or any results of the Project, or any Assessment, without the prior written permission of the other party.
Despite multiple contacts with many of the relevant state agencies over several months, the committee received very little of the requested technical information. Several state agencies provided registration booklets and test preparation guides and one state provided a summary of passing rates. California officials provided technical documentation for one of its 40 tests, but the committee concluded that the documentation did not include sufficient information for a meaningful technical evaluation.
In addition to contract restrictions on disclosure, state education agencies gave various reasons for not providing to the committee some or all of the