In this paper, the author presents case studies of two high school social studies teachers and the influence of state-level testing on their teaching practices. Based on classroom observations of a unit on the U.S. civil rights movement and teacher interviews before and after that unit, he examines the role the eleventh grade New York State Regents test in U.S. History and Government plays in each teacher's instructional planning, delivery, and assessment. His analysis suggests that while the state test figures into each teacher's instruction, it does so by interacting with a range of other factors, especially the teachers’ views of subject matter and learners. From these findings, he argues that state tests may be an uncertain lever and that, while reformers continue pinning their hopes on new tests, faith in tests as a means of instructional change may be hard to sustain.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebyJ., HuntL., & JacobM. (1994). Telling the truth about history.New York: W. W. Norton.
2.
BartonK. (1997). “I just kinda know.” Elementary students’ ideas about historical evidence. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25 (4), 407–430.
3.
BogdanR., & BiklenS. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
BrophyJ. (1992). Fifth-grade U. S. history: How one teacher arranged to focus on key ideas in-depth. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20 (2), 141–155.
5.
California Board of Education. (1988). History-social science framework for the California public schools.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
6.
CohenD., & BarnesC. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD., McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
ConnellyF. M., & ClandininD. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19 (4), 2–14.
8.
CorbettH. D., & WilsonB. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
EnglishF. (1980). Improving curriculum management in the schools.Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
11.
EricksonF. (1992). Why the clinical trial method doesn't work as a metaphor or educational research: A response to Shrag. Educational Researcher, 21 (5), 9–11.
12.
EvansR. (1990). Teacher conceptions of history revisited: Ideology, curriculum, and student belief. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28 (2), 101–138.
13.
FeltovichP., SpiroR., & CoulsonR. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. In FredericksonN., MislevyR., & BejarqI. (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 181–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FinnC. (1995). Who's afraid of the big, bad test? In RavitchD. (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 120–144). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
FirestoneW., MayrowetzD, & FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (2), 95–113.
16.
FredericksonN. (1984). The real test bias. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202.
17.
FreemanD., KuhsT., PorterA., KnappenL., FlodenR., SchmidtW., & SchwilleJ. (1980). The fourth grade mathematics curriculum as inferred from textbooks and tests.East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
18.
FuhrmanS. (1993). The politics of coherence. In FuhrmanS. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 1–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
FuhrmanS., CluneW., & ElmoreR. (1988). Research on educational reforms: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90, 237–258.
GrantS. G. (1996). Locating authority over content and pedagogy: Cross-current influences on teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24 (3), 237–272.
22.
GrantS. G. (1997a). On subject-specific pedagogy: Two teachers; two approaches. Paper presented at the National Council for the Social Studies, Cincinnati, OH.
23.
GrantS. G. (1997b). Opportunities lost: Teachers learning about the New York state social studies framework. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25 (3), 259–287.
24.
GrantS. G. (1997c). A policy at odds with itself: The tension between constructivist and traditional views in the New York state social studies framework. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13 (1), 92–113.
25.
GrantS. G. (1998). Reforming reading, writing, and mathematics: Teachers’ responses and the prospects for systemic reform.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
GrantS. G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of changes in the New York state testing program. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (14), 1–16. Available on-line: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n14.html
27.
HaladynaT., NolenS., & HaasN. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 2–7.
28.
HaneyW., MadausG., & LyonsR. (1993). The fractured marketplace for standardized testing.Boston: Kluwer.
29.
HeubertJ., & HauserR. (Eds.) (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
KelleghanT., MadausG., & AirasianP. (1982). The effects of standardized testing.Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
31.
KoretzD. (1988). Arriving in Lake Woebegon: Are standardized tests exaggerating achievement and distorting instruction?American Educator, 12 (2), 8–15, 46–52.
32.
KoretzD. (1995). Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, and often a test is only a test. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 154–166). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
33.
LeMahieuP. (1984). The effects on achievement and instructional content of a program of student monitoring through frequent testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6 (2), 175–187.
34.
LevstikL. (1993). I wanted to be there: The impact of narrative on children's historical thinking. In TummellM., & AmnonR. (Eds.), The story of ourselves (pp. 65–77). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
35.
LevstikL. (1995). Narrative constructions: Cultural frames for history. The Social Studies, 86, 113–116.
36.
MadausG. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In TannerL. (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: 87th yearbook of the NSSE, Part 1.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
New York State Education Department. (1996). Learning standards for social studies.Albany, NY: Author.
39.
NobleA., & SmithM. (1994). Old and new beliefs about measurement-driven reform: “Build it and they will come.” Educational Policy, 8 (2), 111–136.
40.
PellegrinoJ. (1992). Commentary: Understanding what we measure and measuring what we understand. In GiffordB., & O'ConnorM. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 275–294). Boston: Kluwer.
41.
PophamJ., CruseK., RankinS., SandiferP., & WilliamsP. (1985). Measurement-driven instruction: It's on the road. Phi Delta Kappan, 66 (9), 628–634.
42.
PophamW. J. (1998). Farewell, curriculum: Confessions of an assessment convert. Phi Delta Kappan, 380–438.
43.
RavitchD. (Ed.). (1995). Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
44.
ResnickD., & ResnickL. (1985). Standards, curriculum, and performance: A historical and comparative perspective. Educational Researcher, 14 (4), 5–20.
45.
RombergT., ZarinniaA, & WilliamsS. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers’ perceptions.Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education.
ShankerA. (1995). The case for high stakes and real consequences. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 145–153). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
48.
SmithM., & O'DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS., & MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). New York: Falmer.
49.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 8–11.
50.
StigginsR., & ConklinN. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
51.
VanSledrightB., & BrophyJ. (1992). Storytelling, imagination, and fanciful elaboration in children's historical reconstructions. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (4), 837–859.
52.
VanSledrightB., & BrophyJ. (1995). “Storytellers,” “scientists,” and “reformers” in the teaching of U.S. history to fifth graders. Advances in Research on Teaching, 5, 195–243.
53.
WineburgS., & WilsonS. (1991). Subject matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 305–347). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
