Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
WHAT’S AT STAKE IN HIGH-STAKES TESTING
TEACHERS AND PARENTS SPEAK OUT
Mary Alice Barksdale-Ladd
University of South Florida
Karen F. Thomas
Western Michigan University
This article reports findings from interviews with 59 teachers and 20 parents in two large states.
Both have standards, attendant benchmarks, and standardized tests to assess students on the standards. Interview protocols from teachers and parents rendered data informing us about (a) teacher
and parent knowledge of state standards and testing; (b) teacher test administration and student
preparation practices; (c) effects of tests on teachers, parents, and students; (d) how teachers make
instructional decisions based on these tests; and (e) the value of such tests. Teachers and parents
were unanimous about (a) the intense stress on all involved, (b) the undermining of meaningful instruction and learning, and (c) the high stakes involved. Differences existed between teachers and
parents in the two states. Implications address the need for stakeholders in children’s education to
make known the deleterious effects of state testing to those in charge of state-mandated testing.
The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission of Excellence in Education,
1983) is frequently identified as the impetus of
the focused march toward accountability and
high-stakes testing over the past 16 years. In no
uncertain terms, this document sent out a challenge to America’s schools:
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on
America the mediocre educational performance that
exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act
of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen
to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in
achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains
possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act
of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
(p. 5)
This report recommended strengthening graduation requirements, setting higher standards
for both schools and colleges, increasing the
amount of time students spend engaged in
learning tasks, and improving teaching through
higher standards. The drive for accountability
was on.
As states set higher standards, those responsible for setting the standards began considering how they would measure student progress
to meet these standards. Assuming standards
were clearly identified and students were
taught the material allowing them to meet the
standards, testing appeared to be the logical
approach to identify students who did not meet
expectations, as well as the teachers of these students. Thus, through developing higher standards and tests for measuring the degree to
which students met those standards, there was a
system in place for holding students, teachers,
and schools accountable for assuring that all
students met expected standards (Haertel, 1999).
During the 1990s, educators in every state
worked tirelessly to perfect descriptions of standards at every level and content area
(McGill-Franzen, in press; McLaughlin, 1994).
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000 384-397
© 2000 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
384
Established as state education policies, standards were placed in the hands of teachers
while, simultaneously, hundreds of thousands
of dollars were spent on the development of
specific tests designed to measure each standard. Although broad differences in tests exist
among different states, including standardized,
criterion-referenced, or performance assessments (Haertel, 1999; Sacks, 1997; Sheldon &
Biddle, 1998), the nation’s teachers are now fully
aware that policy and testing have essentially
become one and the same.
There are numerous questions about the efficacy of the policies/standards/testing efforts to
improve the quality of education. Neither
researchers nor teachers appear to have been
highly involved in the creation of their states’
standards policies. Although it seems obvious
that research should inform policy, Teddlie and
Stringfield (1993) report that research hardly
ever informs policy making, and according to
Lagemann (1996), research appears not to be
highly regarded by those who shape policy.
Although researchers are busily publishing articles critical of current standardized, criterionreferenced, and performance assessment measures (Czubaj, 1995; Haertel, 1999; Haladyna,
Haas, & Allison, 1998; Mabry, 1999; Popham,
1999; Sacks, 1997; Sheldon & Biddle, 1998; Stake,
1999), there is little evidence that use of these
testing measures is affected. Criticisms of current testing practices proliferate outside the academic community as well. With Time’s magazine articles such as “The Test of Their Lives: As
State Grade School Exams Spread, Some Ask:
Are the Stakes Too High?” (1999) and Newsweek’s
voicing similar concerns in “Cramming for ‘the
Test’: Massachusetts Kids Scramble to Pass New
State Exams” (1999), questions about state testing programs are made available to the public.
States create policies and design tests for
teachers to assess these policies despite the fact
that researchers and media throwing harsh criticisms. However, little is heard from the teachers
who are responsible for students’ meeting the
standards and passing the tests. Green and
Dixon (1996) point out that teachers should be
an important part of the decision making in setting policy. Yet, when states form committees to
develop standards and related tests, teachers
often view their participation on these committees as token representation. Their voices are
not heard. Green and Dixon assert that there is a
restrictive view of who should control policy.
Because elected or appointed officials control
the “purse strings” of education (p. 298), they
view their perceptions as more valuable than
those of teachers.
There are, however, advocates who, in the
interest of the best education for all our children, call for national testing that would involve
both teachers and parents (M. S. Smith,
Stevenson, & Li, 1998) to see that all children
receive high-quality instruction in reading and
mathematics. Conceived with the best of intentions, this voluntary testing would appear to
hold parents accountable for assuring high student achievement in the two basic areas of reading and math. This proposed test offers the creative and cutting edge advantage of involving
parents and teachers in both the design and the
results made known to teachers and parents so
that there would be “immediate access to test
results and elaborative information” (p. 43).
Given this information, parents and teachers
can begin to help improve student performance.
Clearly, assessment is needed to begin the process of addressing student needs. On the political front, almost all governors are calling for
accountability on the part of teachers and
teacher educators through standards and
assessment based on those standards.
Although thousands of teachers are not chosen as teacher representatives on policy committees, state education standards and their
related tests are nonetheless mandates for all
teachers to follow. There is evidence that this
top-down policy is not helpful to teachers
(McGill-Franzen, in press) and that pressure
to assure high test scores has detrimental
effects on teaching (Johnston, 1998). Furthermore, publishing test scores with schools’
rankings in local newspapers, thereby pressuring teachers to produce high test scores, causes
teachers “anxiety, shame, loss of esteem, and
alienation” (M. L. Smith, 1991, p. 8; also reported
by Johnston, 1998; Johnston, Afflerbach, &
Weiss, 1993; Johnston, Guice, Baker, Malone, &
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
385
Michelson, 1995; M. L. Smith, Edelsky, Draper,
Rottenberg, & Cherland, 1991). For teachers,
understanding a policy and the test that will be
administered to assess that policy does not easily translate into instructional plans and
moment-to-moment teaching decisions during
the school day (McGill-Franzen, in press).
Evidence also exists demonstrating that the
higher the stakes on a given test, the greater the
level of teacher focus on test preparation and
the greater the chance of teachers’ teaching to
the test to the detriment of other aspects of
teaching/learning (Herman & Golan, 1991;
Johnston, 1998; M. L. Smith, 1991). Today, stakes
are higher than ever before for many of our
nation’s teachers. School-by-school, district-bydistrict, and state-by-state comparisons published in local newspapers coupled with tremendous pressure to produce high test scores
from administrators, school boards, and state
legislators make testing the focus of teacher
thinking about instruction. Few data are available on how teachers are dealing with current
policies, standards, and testing requirements.
Thus, this study asks the question, What perceptions do teachers hold about mandated standards and related tests, and how do teachers
make instructional decisions given these
mandates?
In addition, this study addresses parents’
perceptions. As with teachers, there are few
reports of parent perceptions and responses to
new standards mandated for their children. The
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll (Rose & Gallup,
1999) repeatedly indicates that “the closer people are to the public schools, the better they like
them” (p. 42). Although we know that closeness
to schools has an impact on perceptions about
them, the current climate in education is somewhat different from what it has been in the past.
Certainly, newspaper headlines describing and
decrying failing test scores must lead parents to
question their children’s schools. On one hand,
there is a call for accountability and wise use of
taxpayers’ dollars, and most parents see this as
evidenced through standardized testing assuring high standards. However, on the other
hand, there are parents who know their children’s learning cannot be reduced to a test score.
386
Routman (1996) provides examples of the need
to include parents: “Partnerships with parents
are an absolute necessity for successful [school]
reform efforts. We are naive if we think we can
make changes in our teaching without support
of the parents” (p. 64). In Smart Schools, Smart
Kids, Fiske (1992) alerts us to the power of parental choice in schools, recounting the power that
grassroots movements by parents bring to the
schools. Parents are an important part of this
testing culture. Therefore, we address the following questions: (a) What do parents think
about current mandates and testing programs?
and (b) What perceptions do they hold of their
children’s schools in a climate of school grading
and comparison?
DESIGN
We interviewed a total of 59 teachers (35
teachers in a large southern state [SS] and 24
teachers in a large central/northern state [NS]).
The majority (51) of the teachers were students
in master’s- and doctoral-level literacy programs, so they may be considered exceptional in
that they were seeking knowledge of literacy
teaching and learning above the undergraduate
level. Given their desire to keep abreast of current theory and practices through graduate education, these teachers represent those in the profession who are aware of current standards,
assessments, and tests. This may represent a
more informed sample of teachers. All teachers
were teachers of reading, writing, and the
related language arts in Grades 1 through 8.
Although this sample may present a limitation
of the study, the participants ranged in experience from teachers in their 3rd year to veteran
teachers of 20 years.
We conducted interviews with three focus
groups composed of 6 teachers in each group,
two in the SS and one in the NS, accounting for
18 teachers. We interviewed the remaining 41
teachers individually. Two thirds were master’s
degree students (30), and the remaining 29 were
doctoral students. Using both focus group interviews and individual interviews allowed us
two perspectives. In focus groups, we had the
opportunity to record and note teachers freely
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
expressing themselves among their peers in an
atmosphere in which we, as researchers, were
almost nonexistent. However, in individual
interviews, we could probe in depth and get
information that teachers might not say in the
presence of their colleagues. Probes sought
examples of general statements, broad generalizations, and heavily laden value judgments.
Using both methods provided us richer data.
Teacher interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2 hours. Questions addressed (a) how
teachers learned about policies, standards, and
related tests; (b) how teachers were prepared for
administering the tests; (c) how teacher decisions about classroom instruction are influenced by testing policies; and (d) teachers’ perceptions about the value of each of the testing
policies.
Twenty parents, 10 in each state, were interviewed individually. In both states, we chose to
interview parents of children attending school/
university partnership schools. We suspected
that there was a greater likelihood that professional development school parents would be
knowledgeable about testing policies. As professional development schools, these schools
had a continual influx of university personnel
and student teaching interns, so parents may
have been more aware of educational practices
and innovations. Therefore, the parental sample
may also present a limitation of this study.
The interviews addressed the same concepts
as the teacher interviews, taking a parent perspective. Parent interviews focused on (a) parent knowledge of state standards, policies, and
tests; (b) parent knowledge of how teachers prepare students for tests; (c) parent approaches to
preparing their children for taking these tests;
(d) parent perceptions about the value of the
mandated tests; and (e) parent perceptions
about their children’s schools, in light of school
grading comparisons. Parent interviews lasted
from 20 minutes to 1 hour.
ANALYSIS
Viewing teacher and parent perceptions of
testing policy as a phenomenon, we took a
phenomenological approach to the analysis of
interview data, as described by Hycner (1985).
By casting findings in a phenomenological
light, interview data represent the way this testing experience appeared to those stakeholders
involved (i.e., teachers and parents) through
their conscious and concentrated thoughts
about testing. Both interview groups, focus
group and individual, were analyzed and the
data collapsed. We transcribed audiotaped
interviews given in response to the five focus
areas, and we read them individually. Each
researcher then identified categories that
emerged and were repeated across interviews.
Within these categories, interviews were segmented into units of meaning and placed in categories. Units of meaning were double or triple
coded to maintain context when needed.
As a representative member check, we shared
a draft of the article with 10 teachers who participated in focus group interviews. These teachers were asked to read the article to ensure that
categories “made sense and were accurate” and
to consider whether representative quotes
included for each category were in fact representative of their understandings of the interview experience. Quotes chosen were selected
as representative comments of at least one half
of the teachers and in some cases represented all
teachers. Asked to recommend needed changes,
the 10 teachers offered none, finding the results
in keeping with their understandings. Two similar member checks were made for the parental
perception section of the results, and the parents
found the reported data to be accurate and
understandable.
RESULTS
Because both states required criterion-referenced and state writing tests given at specific
grade levels as well as standardized achievement tests given at all grade levels, we had data
reported for test types. Results are organized
with teacher data presented first by the eight
categories that emerged as commonalities
across both states: (a) how teachers learned of
standards and tests, (b) teacher perceptions of
the rationale for the standards and tests, (c)
teachers’ and students’ preparation for the tests,
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
387
(d) pressures exerted on teachers for students
to perform well, (e) instruction/curriculum
changes due to test performance, (f) teachers’
accounts of children’s responses to the tests, (g)
teacher perception of the value of the tests, and
(h) teacher perception of the effects of the tests.
The category results are followed with a discussion of differences between the two states.
Results from the parent interviews are reported
next in the following categories: (a) how parents
learned of standards, tests, and policies; (b)
parental perceptions of the rationale for standards and tests; (c) parental pressure to ensure
children perform well; (d) parental preparation
of their children for tests; (e) parental perception
of children’s responses to tests; and (f) parental
perceptions of value and effect of tests. We
found more differences in the parents’ comments across the two states than in the teachers’,
so differences are included within discussions
of categories where they apply.
Teacher Interviews
How teachers learned about policies, standards,
and related tests. In both states, it was common
for teachers to get the first inkling about policies, standards, and related tests via the teacher
grapevine. For instance, one teacher said,
It starts as a rumor. Sometimes I have the idea that
some people know it’s coming before other people
know it’s coming. All of a sudden, everybody’s talking about this new test, and you ask, “What’s that?”
and they say, “Don’t worry, you’ll find out.” Sometimes we’re just told, “It’s coming. Get prepared. It’s
coming.”
After hearing uncertain bits of information
via the grapevine, more solid and reliable data
soon followed. An SS teacher recounted,
A few years ago, I heard the teachers talking about
this new writing test, and, like, the next day, I read
about it in the paper. Then, in the next faculty meeting, the principal gave us some information, and
soon there was another faculty meeting with the language arts supervisor who started telling us the details. Now we’ve had it for about 5 years, and I have
probably 10 inches of files on [the state writing test].
Teachers were less specific in their responses
about policies and standards. They knew that
388
policies existed, and they thought they “probably” had been given the standards before they
learned about the test. As one teacher said,
You know, we get dozens of printed flyers about various topics every day from all over, from the principal, from committees, from the district, from the
state, from the supervisors, and I just can’t remember when any one of those showed up. . . . But finding
out about these big tests, that’s different. . . . You stop
and pay attention because every new test means that
your life is going to change.
However, a difference surfaced in the NS because the standards and benchmarks have been
in print since 1969. With a 30-year history, much
more is known and made known to teachers in
the NS. The NS testing has been brought directly
in line with the standards, and the governor tied
money to test results. Therefore, more teachers
are involved in creating the standards as well as
the test items. A teacher offered, “You know, the
[NS] governor threatened to withhold funds
from schools performing poorly and reward
high-scoring schools.” Publishing the state test
score results in all the state newspapers also
serves to keep testing issues and policies in the
public limelight. Therefore, more school districts now keep NS teachers informed about
standards and testing policies because as one
teacher commented, “The stakes are becoming
too high to ignore.”
Teacher perceptions about the rationale behind the
standards and tests. Although teachers did not remember specifically when they learned about
standards, they were not cavalier about their
importance. They knew the given names of the
standards, were able to discuss the meanings of
the standards, and understood a rationale behind the standards. In discussing literacy standards in his state, a teacher stated,
There are several standards for reading, language
arts, and writing. To me, the main idea behind the
standards is that all of the kids have to come up to the
same level in everything. They have to be able to
read, write, spell, and use language at what the state
considers fourth-grade level, and no child can fall
behind because if the kid doesn’t show that he is on
fourth-grade level when he takes the benchmarks
test, he will be retained. I know why this has been enacted; it’s because too many of our kids have been
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
sent on up grade after grade, and they end up either
dropping out of high school or struggling along and
getting a degree that really doesn’t mean anything
because they didn’t deserve it and didn’t have the
skills. I agree that we need some standards in order
to prevent this sort of thing in the future. . . . Standards aren’t just for the teachers; they are for the kids
and the parents, too. Teachers are scared . . . but the
kids are scared too, because they know there’s no
more fooling around. Somewhat, I think that’s good
because my kids didn’t use to be scared at all; they
knew that if they’d already been failed in a grade before they got to me, I couldn’t fail them. . . . I guess
something just had to be done.
Teachers’ rationales supportive of the standards were in keeping with the national impetus for improving the quality of education. Although teachers agreed for the most part with
the need for higher standards, dissension was
evident about the value of standards. Many of
the teachers found that standards conflicted
with their understandings of child development. For instance, one teacher said, “I know
why they want standards, but what ever happened to developmentally appropriate education? Did they just decide to forget that we know
that every child learns at a different rate?” Another teacher stated,
All these years, I believed we were supposed to teach
the child at the child’s level, at the zone of proximal
development. I took courses and studied . . . but now
the state tells me that I was wasting my time because
their standards are the name of the game, not the
children.
There were other statements questioning the
appropriateness of the standards for children.
For example,
I would like to find out who wrote those standards
and I’d like to force them to come to my school and
sit in with my kids every day for a month. They’d
change those standards, and they’d see that I’m a
great teacher and my kids work hard . . . but they
[kids] just aren’t all ready for these standards.
Some teachers believed that high-stakes testing had been developed due to public knowledge about ineffective teachers; however, our
participants did not see these tests as having the
effect of improving teaching. One teacher explained,
I think they [the tests] were designed because everyone thinks there are so many bad teachers, and this
would make the bad teachers improve. But it isn’t; in
fact, it is giving bad teachers an excuse to continue
doing what they’ve always done—lots of skill and
drill. It’s a license for bad teaching.
Finally, some teachers understood the rationale for high-stakes testing as a means by which
states could demonstrate their hard work to improve education through large expenditures.
For example,
It’s big money. Companies bid for making these
tests, and they’re expensive to make and expensive
to grade. I’ve heard it costs about $8.00 to grade each
[state criterion-referenced achievement test]. [The
state] can show it’s spending a lot on education without actually building new buildings or hiring more
teachers.
Across participants, all were able to articulate
a logical rationale for the development of standards and high-stakes testing in their own
states. No teachers mentioned national education initiatives within their rationales (although
some teachers made reference to issues receiving a great deal of national press attention).
Rather, these teachers tended to focus on their
own states, seeing standards and testing as state
initiatives developed primarily as a result of
state concerns about the quality of education its
children received.
Preparing teachers to administer and children to
take tests. In both states, teachers prepared for
administering standards-related tests through
(a) in-service training in their schools and districts, (b) materials and booklets provided by
states and school districts, (c) formal and informal discussions with other teachers, and (d)
teacher-purchased books and related materials.
In some cases, there was practically no preparation. In discussing her first administration of a
state criterion-referenced test, one SS teacher
said, “Our training came in the form of a little
booklet that was attached to the test the day we
gave it.”
In most cases, there was much preparation
and gathering of materials.
I went to a meeting, and I got folders of [a] kajillion
things for you to do. . . . Even if you’re a sec-
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
389
ond-grade teacher, you have to be preparing children to take this fourth-grade test. You can buy
things [at] all the teacher stores. There are books
with materials to get kids ready for the tests. It is a
booming business, and they’re at all the conferences
hocking these things.
In another case, a teacher said,
You wouldn’t believe it. There were in-service meetings with the supervisor from the central office,
about three of them, and then we met in grade-level
teams once a week for months. Everybody gathered
materials and made materials, and we shared them
with each other, and we created all of these big
three-ring binders full of things—things to do early
in the year, things to do at holiday time. We created
tons of practice tests because we wanted the kids using this type of test format all year long. I’ll bet we
spent 50 hours that first year. Preparing for that test
took over our lives at first; then we got to see what
the test was really like, and we spent more time next
year. It is endless.
All teachers in both states provided extensive
descriptions of how they prepared children to
take state writing, state criterion-referenced
achievement, and standardized achievement
tests. These descriptions could be divided into
four general categories: (a) teaching information directly related to expected test content
with questions targeting specific skills, (b) providing classroom practice using the precise test
format, (c) teaching test taking skills, and (d)
making test preparation a daily part of instruction. It is interesting that invariably, teachers reported that the methods they had selected were
in response to the direct and indirect pressure
felt from administrators to do so. Comments included the following: “Our teachers were told
to do something once a week for 30 minutes specifically to get children ready for the [state criterion-referenced achievement test]”; “My
principal said, ‘When you make each lesson
plan, ask yourself if what you are planning is
going to help students on one of these tests. If it
isn’t going to help on the tests, don’t do it’ ”; and
“We are encouraged to teach to the tests. I know
I do. I would say that out of the entire school
year, I spend anywhere from 2 to 3 months a
year on teaching to the test.”
The NS has a complete statewide test preparation program with a test-coach booklet and
390
skillpads in which the students work. For 1 or 2
months before the state test, the staff development person (in this case, usually the Reading
Recovery teacher) conducts testing preparation
classes. He or she is charged with teaching the
strategies for the skill identified from last year’s
state test as the target skill to be mastered.
Weeks are spent on not only the target skills but
test taking skills as well. In addition, preservice
interns (education majors) from the university
are recruited for $10.00 an hour to help in the
coaching of these state tests as well as help substitute teachers who are hired to teach while regular classroom teachers learn about administering and coaching for these tests. Principals
display banners during test week stating “Beat
the [state’s test name].”
Pressure put on teachers to ensure that children do
well. Teachers discussed the pressure they felt to
ensure high scores on their state test as well as its
source. Descriptions indicated that pressure
and stress are constant. Direct sources of pressure included (a) statements made and memos
sent to teachers by administrators, (b) conversations and meetings with other teachers where
testing was a topic, and (c) the media. One
teacher explained, “The pressure is on. I feel
pressure, partly from the constant memos. I internalize the pressure, and it is always with me.”
Another said,
It’s awful. I just cringe every time I walk in the
teacher’s room because these tests are the only topic
of conversation in there, and it raises your anxiety
just to hear how scared everybody is. A few years
ago, I really loved teaching, but this pressure is just
so intense. . . . I’m not sure how long I can take it.
In addition, many teachers had concerns related to consequences of the tests for the children. For instance,
They have rules, like if a child fails [the fourth-grade
state writing test], they have to go to summer school.
Then, if they fail it again in fifth grade, they are automatically retained, no matter what. So part of the
pressure on teachers is coming from what’s gonna
happen to the children.
In the NS, “If a child fails the third-grade reading, they go to summer school.” Teachers knew
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
that they transferred their anxiety to their
students.
We do show our stress to the kids, and a kind of anxiety takes over. . . . I don’t think we have a voice in this
testing stuff. If the administration didn’t make such
a big fuss over the [state criterion-referenced test],
maybe we wouldn’t pass this anxiety to the kids.
Many of the teachers felt pressure related to
job security.
They [the tests] really impact me as a teacher because
it’s getting to where if our kids don’t pass, we don’t
get paid for it, and we could get booted out of teaching that grade level if our children don’t pass the test.
Although we did not find evidence that teachers
were currently actually losing money, teachers
frequently had fears of having salary cuts, losing a job, or being forced out of teaching as a result of low test scores.
Finally, NS teachers related the stigma associated with a school district whose state tests
scores are low. Every year, all state newspapers
report the test scores, comparatively printed, so
that everyone knows where a particular school
district falls in this sorting and labeling process.
“I don’t agree with publishing these results,
although many people use these to compare
school districts.” Another added, “People buy
houses based on high [state test] scores in the
district.”
Changes in instruction due to the importance of
high test scores. Although we did not ask any direct questions about how teachers had changed
their instructional practices due to testing,
about 75% of the teachers offered this information. For the most part, they provided examples
of kinds of activities that had been discontinued
in favor of test preparation. These activities can
be generalized as instructional activities that (a)
are pleasant for the teacher and the children; (b)
provide reinforcement of skills and promote
in-depth understandings of content; (c) involve
collaboration, independence, and higher order
thinking skills; and (d) have goals that are not
measured by tests (such as the development of
attitudes). Some of the instructional practices
and activities that teachers had discontinued or
that were now used infrequently included (a) si-
lent reading; (b) buddy reading and shared
reading; (c) book talks; (d) collaborative writing
and writing process; (e) science experiments; (f)
picnics; (g) field trips; (h) classroom cooking; (i)
classroom drama, choral reading, and skits; (j)
thematic, integrated instructional units; (k) creative activities (particularly creative, imaginative writing experiences); (l) games (math and
reading); (m) manipulative mathematics experiences; and (n) breaks and recess.
Children’s responses to the tests. Based on our
interviews with these teachers, we find no evidence that the teachers believe that test preparation and test taking have any positive effects on
children. Primarily, teachers described how
test-related stress affected the children. Representative statements included the following:
The kids feel the stress. The kids know the teachers
feel the stress. They worry. They say, “I’m scared. I
don’t want to take this.” Some of them don’t sleep
because they’re so worried, and they cry. Straight-A
students are scared that they’re gonna fail.
The pressure is on the kids. I had a learning disabled child who took [the state writing test] last year
and got a 2.5. This child was hysterical when she
found out. She didn’t come back to school the next
day. It knocked all of the self-confidence we’d built
up right out of her.
Many teachers expressed dismay that children’s test scores were not accurate reflections
of children’s actual knowledge and skills.
They hate the assessments. Their best writing . . . has
not been with those assessments. They always do so
well with in-class stories; that’s when I know what
their best writing skills are like. More often than not,
I’m disappointed in the assessments.
Teacher perceptions of the value of the tests.
Across the 59 interviews, most teachers were
not able to identify ways in which the tests they
were giving were of value. Some teachers stated
that the tests served the purpose of preparing
children for many more years of test taking. For
example, one teacher said, “I think it’s valuable
in the sense that it prepares them for what’s to
come for them. They’re gonna have to get used
to it.” There were no other ways in which teachers found the tests valuable. One teacher stated
that the real shame was “in the value not placed
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
391
on [learning and teaching], which is needed by
children, but on those things needed to pass
the test.”
Teacher perceptions about effects of the tests.
When asked about the effects of the tests, other
than anxiety and stress, teachers offered the following as negative effects on (a) teaching and
the teaching profession, (b) student learning, (c)
student achievement, and (d) student self-esteem. Teachers found that they spent too much
time preparing children for tests and administering tests.
Our fourth-grade teachers looked at it, and if you
count it up, there is a test that they have to do about
once every 12 days. It doesn’t happen that way, but it
would equate to that. Just think what you could do if
you took all that time spent on testing and preparing
for testing and used it to teach. There’s way too
much testing.
Furthermore, the teachers found that their
teaching was “worse instead of better” as a result of preparing children for testing.
I’m not the teacher I used to be. I used to be great, and
I couldn’t wait to get to school every day because I
loved being great at what I do. All of the most powerful teaching tools I used to use every day are no
good to me now because they don’t help children get
ready for the test, and it makes me like a robot instead of a teacher. I didn’t need a college degree and
a master’s degree to do what I do now. They don’t
need real teachers to prepare children for tests and,
in fact, I think they could just develop computer programs to do this.
Similarly, another teacher discussed the probability that testing would send teachers away
from teaching and toward other fields. “These
tests frustrate high-energy teachers. They will
deplete the talent base in teaching by causing
talented teachers to leave.”
Other teachers addressed the effects on teaching as a profession. For example,
I just think it is deprofessionalizing the whole teaching profession. I get really irked when government
says, “You will give this test and your children will
do well,” and they haven’t even been in the classroom and worked with kids, and they don’t come
down to see how all this affects the teachers and the
kids.
392
Another offered,
These tests, and all of this pressure to make kids do
well on the tests . . . it’s an insult. It’s saying that we
aren’t a profession and we can’t be trusted to do our
jobs, so high-pressure tactics are necessary to make
us behave. They’re treating us like stupid children,
they’re turning us into bad teachers, taking away every bit of pride.
The teachers also discussed negative effects
of high-stakes testing on student learning, student achievement, and student self-esteem. One
teacher summed it up for many teachers:
I know this is disrespectful, but these tests are making my kids stupid. The kids I’ve had the last few
years have gotten higher scores because I’ve worked
so hard at getting them ready for the tests, but this is
a facade because they just don’t have it together like
my former students. They don’t read as well because
they’re only reading for main ideas and supporting
details and resolutions and characterizations which
compared to my students a few years ago is a sin.
Those students read for getting the whole picture
and for fun. They loved reading. But these students,
they just think reading is something you do for a test.
Learning for the tests isn’t meaningful; it’s a chore,
and so I think the tests have really made achievement go down . . . the scores are up, but the kids [today] know less, and they are less as people. . . . I think
it’s a crime; it’s educational malpractice.
Differences between SS and NS teachers. In most
areas, interview responses of SS and NS teachers were so similar that we could see no differences. There was one difference noted. The NS
teachers discussed parental rights, whereas the
SS teachers did not. A major issue seemed to be
that NS parents could choose for their children
not to take the test, and many parents took this
option. However, NS teachers reported that
many administrators discouraged teachers
from informing parents about the option of not
having their children take the tests, whereas
other administrators encouraged teachers to not
include certain children in the test taking because “it would lower our school average.” This
latter option is somewhat legitimate as the NS
test guidelines do exempt special education students from having to take the state test. One NS
teacher said, “Our parents know that they can
refuse to have their kids take the test and do!”
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
Another responded, “Although we don’t make
it known, all you need is one student’s parents
to refuse, and the word spreads.” Our understanding was that SS parents did not have the
right to refuse to have their children tested, or if
they had this right, it was not known.
Parent Interviews
How parents learned about policies, standards,
and related tests. The parents in both states knew
little about state policies or standards. However,
they knew a great deal about the tests their children took. Parents knew the names of the major
tests by their acronyms and discussed the tests
using these acronyms. Most parents had
learned about the tests from their children’s
teachers, but some had read about the tests in
the newspaper before getting information from
the school. Each year, parents were kept well informed about the tests from school flyers and
newsletters as well as the media. In addition, the
children kept parents informed about upcoming tests. There were actual guidelines for the
parents, directing them to make sure their children got a good night’s sleep and a nourishing
breakfast.
Parent perceptions about the reasoning behind the
standards and tests. The parents in this study
were all aware of media reports about the crisis
in education, and they were able to speak about
many relevant issues.
For years, there have been reports on TV about problems with schools, with most of these reports indicating that children aren’t learning all that they
should be learning and saying that the test scores go
down every year. You would think with all of this
talk about the test scores going down every year that
our children don’t know anything at all, but I think
these new tests are harder than the old tests, and that
is one reason that test scores are lower, but you know,
there [are] all these different worries about the taxpayers’ spending their taxes on education and expecting a good return on their investment, so this
new pressure to do well on these tests is just a way of
making sure that a good return comes in.
Commonly, parents held the understanding
that improved test scores were necessary for
schools to prove to the public that the educational system was working.
Several parents addressed the issue of social
promotion and state testing. One SS mother
explained,
My [child] wasn’t ready for first grade, but his kindergarten teacher sent him on anyway, and it happened again. He wasn’t ready for second grade. He
had to pass this [state criterion-referenced achievement test] if he was going to pass second grade, and
he failed it flat, so the second-grade teacher had no
choice but to hold him back. I’m glad for the tests for
that reason because I was scared for him, and he’s
doing better this year.
Although the parents brought up issues similar to those raised by the teachers when asked
about the rationale behind the tests, they did not
discuss concerns about the tests, nor were any
sarcastic remarks or hostilities seen in their responses. These came at later points in the interview.
Parent pressure to ensure that children do well.
There were differences noted between NS and
SS parents with regard to pressure to ensure that
children produce high test scores. The SS parents did not feel a great deal of pressure, and
they saw encouraging this type of pressure as
being a part of the job of the teacher. One representative SS parent said,
I didn’t really do too much, just made sure she got a
good night’s sleep and gave her a good breakfast. I
wouldn’t really have known what to do to help her
and figure that’s what the teacher is doing anyway
’cause [my child] talks about it all the time, [so] I
know that’s all they were doing in school. I knew the
teacher was worried about it all the time.
An interesting phenomenon has recently occurred in this NS with regard to high school students and the pressure to do well on the state
criterion-referenced tests. Several parents in the
focus group reported that they knew of large
numbers of parents of high school students
(11th grade) who kept their children home in
case a low score would become part of their
child’s record and prevent college acceptance.
Because this became widespread practice, the
governor has now offered $2,500 in scholarships
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
393
to students who perform well on the state tests.
Some parents now recount that the pressure is
there for high school students to perform well
on the state test to receive the scholarship funding. As one parent stated, “Money will turn you
around every time!”
Parental methods of preparing children. Again,
there were differences between SS parents and
NS parents. The SS parents discussed helping
their children with homework throughout the
school year, but they did not engage in any particular academic activities with their children to
prepare them for test taking. The SS parents did
not take an active role in preparing their children specifically for the test. However, because
there are professionally prepared materials that
mirror the NS test, there were NS parents who
coached their children to do well on the state
tests. The NS parents were split on this issue; on
one hand, there are those who realized the
“stress put on our kids” and did little or kept
their children home. On the other hand, there
were those who exerted pressure on their kids to
do well and cracked down on them to do their
homework and practice in their skillpads (the
professionally prepared materials with testcoaching skill booklets to accompany testcoaching workbooks).
Children’s responses to the tests. There were no
differences between the responses of SS and NS
parents in discussions of children’s responses to
the tests. In both populations, parents discussed
high levels of anxiety and nervousness in their
children related to taking the tests and disappointment with test results even when higher
scores were achieved. The parents also discussed their own connected responses. One parent said,
I just hated it for her and while it was tearing her
apart, it was tearing me apart, too. She just got so
worried and was so sure she was going to fail, even
though she is a good student and has been all along.
It’s that they start talking about and preparing kids
for this [state writing test] when they’re in first
grade, even though they don’t take it until fourth
grade, and if they don’t do well, they look like
dooffusses, and the teachers and the schools look
bad. That’s too much pressure for a 10-year-old,
don’t you think?
394
Another parent focused her comments on the
day that her child received his test scores. Powerfully and with much emotion in her voice, she
said,
He came in the door, and he just looked horrible; I
thought he was sick and put my hand on his head,
but he didn’t pay any attention and reached in his
bag and pulled out these folded papers. I thought he
was in big trouble, and I was ready to read those papers and then read him the riot act, and it just
stopped me in my tracks when I opened that paper
up. It was all these numbers, and [my child] started
crying while I was looking at it; he was just so pitiful.
And I didn’t care what those numbers said; they
weren’t so important as taking care of him because
he was crushed. It ruined something in him; it took
something away from him. He was the one who
couldn’t wait to get [to school], but that’s gone because now he thinks something is wrong with him.
These people that make up these tests don’t even
think about children, and they should be ashamed of
what they do to these little things.
Parent perceptions of the value and effects of the
tests. Parents differed in their perceptions of the
value of high-stakes testing, but not by state.
One saw this as a method of ensuring that
weaker students would be retained and given
additional help in the future. “In the long run, it
is probably good because if they get retained,
they’ll have a year to catch up, and that year just
might make a huge difference in their lives.”
Most of the parents criticized the tests and
saw little value in them, citing tests as an unnecessary burden on their children that was not balanced by increased learning. One parent stated
emphatically,
If I thought that getting ready for the test was going
to make them [children] a whole lot smarter, I might
be able to support it, but it just doesn’t. They get all
worried and nervous and upset about this test. They
get beat up for nothing. . . . They don’t learn anything
that’s going to help them in life. They’re just children. It’s crazy.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Who policy makers are, what policies are set,
and who puts these policies into effect with regard to literacy instruction are crucial matters in
educating our children. These data reflect a
great deal of teacher frustration toward policies
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
coming in the form of assessing our children.
Teachers view tests as hurting their performance as good teachers and hurting children by
forcing teach-to-the-test instruction inflicting
unnecessary stress and anxiety. Yet, these teachers feel powerless to do anything except prepare
children for the tests. As one teacher said,
I went to the higher-ups and complained that the informal test was poorly constructed, that it wasn’t
scored accurately, and that the data were being misinterpreted. Basically, I was told, “If you don’t like it,
you can go somewhere else and teach,” because
there were plenty of teachers who would come in
and do what they want them to do.
Some teachers perceive these tests as disempowering teachers. Although the teachers
ranged in experience from 3 to 20 years, there
was an equal amount of frustration given the
testing culture. We noted one difference between veteran and novice teachers: The more
experienced teachers were more vocal with regard to negative comments issued to the administration.
In the call for accountability, teacher decision
making about what is best for children and
notions of developmentally appropriate
instruction appears to have been dismissed.
Teachers are being asked to behave as received
knowers rather than constructed knowers, and
in turn the expectation is that children will be
received rather than constructed knowers
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986;
Johnston, 1998). Although teacher education
programs have worked hard to create programs
that prepare constructivist teachers (Brindley,
1996), public schools apparently have turned
away from this understanding of teaching and
learning. What are the implications of our findings for the futures of both public schools and
teacher education programs?
Because standardized tests have the effect of
driving curriculum and instruction, all public
schools may begin to look alike, and diversity in
teaching may disappear. However, no teacher
argued for a lack of standards or for dismissing
assessment. In fact, teachers did not want to lose
what they considered best practices in assessment: assessment that (a) provides feedback to
help students improve their learning; (b) is part
of a student’s work, which can go into a working portfolio; (c) provides flexibility and does
not dominate the curriculum; (d) informs
instruction to help teachers improve their teaching, thereby ensuring student learning; (e) over
time is classroom based; and (f) uses more than
one measuring stick for assessing students’
learning. These best practices are what most of
our graduate literacy courses espouse, so there
is a huge disconnect between what teachers are
learning in graduate courses with regard to
assessment and what they are asked to administer in state and standardized tests.
Teacher educators are inextricably bound to
the public agenda as the educators of preservice
and in-service teachers and researchers working with the schools, its teachers, and students.
Will teacher education programs, in turn, begin
to incorporate content standards and benchmarks into their programs? This is an especially
important question in states whose institutes of
higher learning have budgets directly connected to state legislators whose thrust is
accountability through these state standardized
tests. There needs to be an inclusive call for state
legislators to become involved with their communities’ schools, their teachers, and their
states’ teacher education programs to witness
the dynamic learning theory of humans as constructed, critical, social, diverse, and unique to
every human. Most literacy teacher educators
present this view of learning to preservice and
in-service teachers only to see classroom teachers becoming frustrated in trying to negotiate a
curriculum reflecting those attributes but meeting with test results that are used in punitive
ways in their states.
Teacher educators need to collaborate with
classroom teachers, parents, and community
groups to educate and inform policy makers
about the true value of assessment—to inform
instruction, not to label, sort, and judge students. Pearson (1996) provides an eloquent case
for policy makers’ (traditionally elected and
appointed officials) becoming more involved in
the lives of our children and the daily realities of
teaching and learning literacy in our schools.
Pearson offers six simply stated literacy policy
issues, through which he invites policy makers
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
395
to “examine these six with care, thoughtfulness,
and a sense of urgency about improving the
lives of our children” (p. 308). Response to this
invitation does not appear to be forthcoming,
and the influence of policy in the form of state
testing is playing an increasingly significant
and troublesome role in schools according to the
representative set of teachers and parents in this
study.
Because America’s literacy and math scores
are frequently compared internationally and
Japan’s elementary schools’ high-achieving
young students have been much touted, it is
interesting to note that Lewis (1995) reports that
Japanese teachers, through their union, simply
refused to administer standardized tests
because of their destructive educational effects
on young learners. Until students get to high
school, there are no such tests in Japanese
schools. It appears that the teachers in this
study, along with teacher educators, know of
the deleterious effects state testing can have on
young learners, and those in the business of
state testing need to be aware of these effects. It
is patently clear from the teachers in this study
that the opposition to standardized testing is
not motivated by fear of being held accountable;
rather it is motivated by the principled notion
that good teaching is not being delivered
because teachers and children are being held
accountable for what these teachers perceive as
bad practices (i.e., teaching to the test through
isolated skill and drill) to render high test
scores. One of the stakeholders in children’s
education in this study posed the possibility of
publishing in the state newspapers the reading
and math scores of the state people (i.e., governor, legislators, elected board of education people, etc.) whose thrust it is to mandate state testing. In this way, taxpayers would know in
which district to “buy a house based on the academic achievement of an enlightened elected
state official.” These are cynical educational
times, and the cynicism appears to be based on
the imposed, top-down, test-driven version of
school reform that this sample of teachers feels
is lowering quality education in many states.
Teachers and parents are speaking up and out
against such educational policies.
396
A sensible balance may lie in the point of view
put forth by Christensen (1999) who asserts that
the question for anyone who cares about kids is how
do we retain our critical stance on assessments while
preparing students for them? Can we “teach the
tests” without compromising what we know to be
true about teaching and learning? (p. 14)
Testing and assessment are not going away anytime soon. What is a viable way for teachers,
teacher educators, parents, and children to best
negotiate this testing culture and learn from
these tests as well as learn for these tests?
REFERENCES
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M.
(1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self,
voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Brindley, R. (1996). The extent to which student teachers
develop a constructivist epistemology and use it to guide their
classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia.
Christensen, L. (1999). High stakes harm. Rethinking
Schools, 13, 14-18.
Cramming for “the test”: Massachusetts kids scramble to
pass new state exams. (1999, May 17). Newsweek, 133,
74-75.
Czubaj, C. A. (1995). Standardized assessments used in
American public schools are invalid and unreliable.
Education, 116, 180-186.
Fiske, E. B. (1992). Smart school, smart kids. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Green, J., & Dixon, C. (1996). Language of literacy dialogues: Facing the future or reproducing the past. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 290-301.
Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662-666.
Haladyna, T. H., Haas, N. M., & Allison, J. (1998). Continuing tensions in standardized testing. Childhood Education, 74, 262-273.
Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing
on teachers and learning—Another look (CSE Tech. Rep.
No. 334). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8,
279-303.
Johnston, P. (1998). The consequences and the use of standardized tests. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Fragile evidence. A critique of reading assessment (pp. 89-101). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnston, P., Afflerbach, P., & Weiss, P. (1993). Teachers’
evaluation of the teaching and learning of literacy and
literature. Educational Assessment, 1, 91-117.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
Johnston, P., Guice, S., Baker, K., Malone, J., & Michelson,
N. (1995). Assessment of teaching and learning in “literature based” classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,
11, 359-371.
Lagemann, E. C. (1996). Contested terrain: A history of education research in the United States, 1890-1990. Chicago:
Spencer Foundation.
Lewis, C. C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds: Reflections
on Japanese preschool and elementary education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of
traditional standardized testing on direct writing
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 673-679.
McGill-Franzen, A. (in press). Policy and instruction: What
is the relationship? Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3).
McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Educational policy, impact on
practice. In M. Aiken (Ed.), American Educational
Research Association encyclopedia of educational research
(pp. 375-382). New York: Macmillan.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983).
A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Pearson, P. D. (1996). Six ideas in search of a champion:
What policy makers should know about the teaching
and learning of literacy in our schools. Journal of Literacy
Research, 28, 302-309.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56, 8-15.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1999). The 31st annual Phi
Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 41-58.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Sacks, P. (1997). Standardized testing: Meritocracy’s
crooked yardstick. Change, 29(2), 24-28.
Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers
College Record, 100, 164-180.
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external
testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20, 8-11.
Smith, M. L., Edelsky, C., Draper, K., Rottenberg, C., &
Cherland, M. (1991). The role of testing in elementary
schools (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 321). Los Angeles: Center
for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at
Los Angeles.
Smith, M. S., Stevenson, D. L., & Li, C. P. (1998). Voluntary
national tests would improve education. Educational
Leadership, 55, 42-44.
Stake, R. E. (1999). The goods on American education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 80, 668-670.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference:
Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New
York: Teachers College Press.
The test of their lives: As state grade school exams spread,
some ask: Are the stakes too high? (1999, February 15).
Time, 153, 56-57.
Mary Alice Barksdale-Ladd is a professor of childhood/language arts/reading at the University of South
Florida, where she teaches reading, language arts, and
qualitative research courses. Her primary research focus is
on teacher education in literacy. In 1995, she completed a
Fulbright fellowship on teacher education reform in the
United States in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the Hertzen
Pedagogical University.
Karen F. Thomas is an associate professor of literacy
education at Western Michigan University, where she
teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in language
and literacy education in the Department of Teaching,
Learning, and Leadership and serves as unit head for the
reading unit of the Dorothy J. McGinnis Reading Center
and Clinic. Her research focus is children’s literacy learning and teacher education in literacy instruction.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, No. 5, November/December 2000
397