The Classroom Impact of High-Stress Testing

Abstract

Introduction Since the early 1980s, much of the conversation about reform in American education has been driven by a conservative political agenda, a major part of which has been to frame the debate in terms of how to safeguard the nation's economic power (e.g., A Nation at Risk, 1983). To this end, a number of eloquent spokespersons have misstated or misinterpreted statistics and even suppressed government-sponsored research which demonstrated that the premise of poor achievement in public schools is at least arguable (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Nevertheless, the presentation of this ideology has been very successful, and most of the 50 states have moved toward implementation of high-stakes testing. It is not uncommon these days for individual schools within a district to be publicly labeled as exemplary or low-performing, and there are rewards and sanctions that follow such designations. In some states, the best schools are given cash awards that may be distributed to teachers as bonus pay. poorest schools face not only public approbation, in some cases the local administration may be replaced by agents of the state. Thus, the concept of educational bankruptcy which was once associated with a few urban districts in New Jersey is now becoming a routine policy for school reform throughout the United States. Part of the Ideology Triumphant is the notion that teachers are ill-prepared for their jobs, that they are deficient in quality and need more rigorous preparation. On the job, teachers should be held strictly accountable for student achievement, which is almost universally described as functional proficiency in basic skill areas. result has been a dramatic increase in what Wise (1979) called legislated learning, an attempt to teacherproof curriculum by establishing tight links between instruction and testing. Such an approach contradicts research on effective school reform which, as Kirst notes, shows that real improvement takes place those responsible for each school are given more responsibility rather than less (Sunday Express News, 1984). Darling-Hammond and Wise (1983) maintain that highly standardized prescriptions lead to dissatisfied professionals, those who would feel, in DeCharms' (1968) terminology, more like pawns than origins. On the other hand, Foucault (1988) would argue that the state has an inherent interest in leading its citizens to define their interests as coterminous with those of the state, i.e., to raise the level of the state's prosperity along with the prosperity of individual members of the state. It has been unclear to what extent teachers see themselves and their principals as being controlled by the state's authority or to what extent they themselves have embraced the ideology of authority. Methodology purpose of this study was to interview teachers specifically about the felt impact of state testing upon their classroom, as well as the legitimacy of the state's purpose in imposing such a program. Focus groups were selected from volunteers at two kinds of schools in the same state - those highly successful on mandated tests, and those quite unsuccessful. Each of the eight groups consisted of seven to nine members; as is typical of the teaching force in American public schools, the majority of the members were white and female. Teachers were assured of anonymity, and the discussions were taped, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes. Findings first theme that emerged was that the pressure of the state testing program, whether direct or indirect, was always present. The first thing they told us this year was when the testing would be done. We were told to put those dates in our plan books and work back from there, said one veteran teacher. Another added that she had thought about changing schools to work at one where a friend had become principal, but all she could talk about was test scores and how they had to do better this year. …