Based on fieldwork conducted in England, Wales, and two American states, this paper suggests six themes about “high stakes testing.” First, not all stakes are perceived to be equally high. Second, pressure to respond to a test comes from more than just formal stakes. Third, external pressure leads to symbolic responses outside the classroom. Fourth, external pressure can be useful for changing content taught. Fifth, external pressure is less effective in changing instructional strategy than content taught. Sixth, the effects of stakes will depend on a variety of other policy factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallS. (1990). Politics and policymaking in education.London: Faber & Faber.
2.
BaronJ. B., & WolfD. P. (1996). Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BermanP. E. (1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally-induced reform. In KirpD., & JensenD. (Eds.), School days, rule days (pp. 46–62). Philadelphia: Falmer.
4.
BrownM., JohnsonD., AskewM., & MillettA. (1994). Evaluation of the implementation of National Curriculum mathematics at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3.London: SCAA.
5.
ClotfelterC. T., & LaddH. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23–63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
CockcroftW. H. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools.London: HMSO.
7.
CohenD. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform?Educational Researcher, 24 (9), 11–17.
8.
CohenD. K., & BarnesC. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD. K., McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding (pp. 207–239) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
CohenD. K., & HillH. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California.Philadelphia: CPRE.
10.
CorbettH. D., & WilsonB. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11.
DaughertyR. (1995). National curriculum assessment: A review of policy 1987–1994.London: Falmer.
12.
DaughertyR. (1997). National curriculum assessment: The experience of England and Wales. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (2), 198–218.
13.
EdelmanM. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ElmoreR. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In FuhrmanS. H., & O'DayJ. A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 294–329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
ElmoreR. F., & FuhrmanS. H. (1994). The governance of curriculum.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
17.
FirestoneW. A. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18 (7), 18–24.
18.
FirestoneW. A., MayrowetzD., & FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (2), 95–117.
19.
FirestoneW. A., & PennellJ. R. (1997). State-initiated teacher networks: A comparison of two cases. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (2), 237–268.
20.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
GewirtzS., BallS. J., & BoweR., (1995). Markets choice and equity in education.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
22.
GoodladJ. A. (1984). A place called school.New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
HughesM. (1997). The National Curriculum in England and Wales: A lesson in externally imposed reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (2), 183–197.
24.
JoftusS., & BermanI. (1998, January). Great expectations?: Defining and assessing rigor in state standards for mathematics and English language arts.Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
25.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
26.
KoretzD., MitchellK., BarronS., & KeithS. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland school performance assessment program. (Project 3.2). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
27.
LawtonM. (1997, March 12). Facing deadline, California is locked in battle over how to teach math. Education Week, pp. 1, 25.
28.
MarshallC., MitchellD., & WirtF. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American states.New York: Falmer.
29.
Maryland School Performance Program. (1990). Learning outcomes in mathematics, reading, writing/language usage, social studies, and science for Maryland School Performance Assessment Program.Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education.
30.
McDonnellL. M. (1994). Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation. American Journal of Education, 102, 394–420.
31.
McLaughlinM. W., & ShepardL. A., with O'DayJ. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform.Washington, DC: National Academy of Education
32.
McNeillL. M. (1986). Contradictions of control.New York: Routledge.
33.
MurnaneR. J., & LevyF. (1996). Teaching to new standards. In FuhrmanS., & O'DayJ. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 257–293) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
35.
Radnor, H. (1996). Evaluation of Key Stage 3 Assessment: Final Report 1995.London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
36.
RaimiR. A., & BradenL. S. (1998, March). State mathematics standards: An appraisal of math standards in 46 states, the District of Columbia and Japan. Fordham Report2 (3).
37.
SchmidtW. H., McKnightC. C., & RaizenS. A. (1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education.East Lansing, MI: U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
38.
SchwabJ. J. (1978). The “impossible” role of the teacher in progressive education. In WestburyI., & WilkofN. (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education, selected essays (pp. 167–183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on students. Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 8–12.
40.
SmithM. L. (1996). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona Student Assessment Program.Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.
41.
StiglerJ. W., & HiebertJ. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (1), 14–21.
42.
StotskyS. (1997, July). State English standards. Fordham Report1 (1).
43.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
