Although previous research suggests that teachers align their instruction to testing demands in the context of high-stakes accountability programs, few studies examine how the policy plays out in the classroom using sustained observations. This research, based on ethnographic case studies of two teachers' classrooms and interviews with 13 teachers at five middle schools, illuminates how high-stakes testing narrows the curricula and displaces teachers' priorities for their students, priorities such as developing personal appreciation for literature and communication and collaboration skills, as well as “writing like a real writer writes.” These findings are noteworthy given that many of the teachers' priorities intersect with state standards.
Alvermann, D., & Moore, D. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951-983). New York: Longman .
2.
Ammon, P., & Black, A. (1998). Developmental psychology as a guide for teaching and teacher preparation. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 409-448). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
3.
Ammon, P., & Kroll, L. (2002). Learning and development in constructivist teacher education. In J. D. Rainer (Ed.), Reframing teacher education: Dimensions of a constructivist approach (pp. 193-240). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
4.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers' work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291—316.
5.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook .
6.
Ball, S.J., & Bowe, R. (1992). Subject departments and the “implementation” of national curriculum policy: An overview of the issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 97-115.
7.
Banks, J.A. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
8.
Berlin, J.A. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. College English, 44(8), 765-777.
9.
Brodhagen, B. (1995). The situation made us special. In M. Apple, & J. Bean (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 83-100). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
10.
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
11.
Cohen, D. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice and performance. In C. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
Commission on Reading for the National Council of Teachers of English. (2004). A call to action: What we know about adolescent literacy and ways to support teachers in meeting students' needs. Retrieved, January 10, 2005, from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/read/I18622.htm
13.
Cone, J.K. (1990). Literature, geography, and the untracked English class. English Journal, December, 60-67.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
16.
Debard, R., & Kubow, P.K. (2002). From compliance to commitment: The need for constituent discourse in implementing testing policy. Educational Policy , 16(3), 387-405.
17.
Debray, E., Parson, G., & Avila, S. (2003). Internal alignment and external pressure: High school responses in four state contexts. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 55-85). New York: Routledge Falmer.
18.
Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as “seed people”: Growing a new future. Educational Researcher, 7(32), 14-21
19.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.
20.
Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
21.
Donahue, P., Finnegan, R., Lutkus, A., Allen, N., & Campbell, J. (2001). The nation's report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000. National Center for Educational Statistics.
22.
Dyson, A.H. (1997). Children out of bounds: The power of case studies in expanding visions of literary development. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literature through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 167-180). New York: Macmillan Library.
23.
Elmore, R.F. (1979). Backward mapping. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
24.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
25.
Firestone, W.A., Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Schorr, R.Y., Hicks, J.E., & Mayrowetz, D. (2002). The ambiguity of test preparation: A multimethod analysis in one state. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1485-1523.
26.
Fusarelli, L.D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94.
27.
Girardin, Susan (1993). Richmond Four Corners. In C. Stevenson & J. F. Carr (Ed.), Integrated studies in the middle grades: “Dancing through walls” (pp. 77-87). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
29.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). Theoretical sampling. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (pp. 45-77). Chicago: Aldine.
30.
Grant, S.G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York state on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398-426.
31.
Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy . Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79-129.
32.
Grissmer, D., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
33.
Greene, J.P., & Winters, M.A. (2003, February 11). What every student needs to know: Does school testing make the grade?San Francisco Chronicle , A21.
34.
Grossman, P.L., & Stodolsky, S.S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 179-221). Washington, DC: American Educational Researchers Association.
35.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Hirsch, E.D. (1996). The schools we need, and why we don't have them . New York: BantamDoubledayDell.
38.
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31-57.
39.
Jones, G.M., Jones, B.D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, November , 199-203.
40.
Kelley, C. (1999). The motivational impact of school-based performance awards. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(4), 309-326.
41.
Kelley, C., & Protsik, J. (1997). Risk and reward: Perspectives on the implementation of Kentucky's school-based performance award program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 474-505.
Kornhaber, M.L. (2004). Assessment, standards and equity. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 91-109). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
44.
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices (Report No. 2-008). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
45.
Langer, J. (2002). Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well: Six features of effective instruction. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.
46.
Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
47.
Linn, R.L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
48.
Little, J.W., & Dorph, R. (1998). Lessons about California school restructuring: California's school restructuring demonstration program. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of California.
49.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 9, 171-178.
50.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
51.
McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2000). Harmful effects of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In M. Kornhaber, G. Orfield, & M. Kurlandar (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequity and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 89-123). New York: Century Foundation.
52.
McNeil, L.M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
53.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon.
54.
Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston: Beacon.
55.
Moje, E.B., Dillon, D.R., & O'Brien, D.G. (2000). Re-examining the roles of the learner, the text, and the context in secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 165-180. National Writing Project. (2005). About the National Writing Project. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from http://www.writingproject.org/About/
56.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999a). English language arts curriculum: Purpose of English language arts study. Retrieved on August 9, 2001, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/purpose.htm
57.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999b). English language arts curriculum: Seventh grade . Retrieved on August 9, 2001, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/gradeseven.htm
58.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2002). ABCs 2002: Accountability report background packet . Retrieved on August 5, 2002, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/
59.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Communications Division. (2002). State accountability director named to ESEA rule-making committee. Retrieved February 28, 2002, from www.ncpublicschools.org/news/01-02/022802p.html
60.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In M. Nystrand, with A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 36-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
61.
Oakes, J., & Lipton. M. (2003). Teaching to change the world (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
62.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversitySchool of Education.
63.
Ridge City Public Schools. (2001). English Language Arts Curriculum Supplement: Grades 6-8. Ridge City, NC: Author.
64.
Siskin, L.S. (2003). Outside the core: Accountability in tested and untested subjects. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 87-98). New York: Routledge Falmer.
65.
Siskin, L.S. (2004). The challenge of high schools. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 167-188). New York: Teachers College Press.
66.
Skrla, L., & Schuerich, J.J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society , 33(3), 235-259.
67.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Johnson, J., & Koschoreck, J. (2000, April). Accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association , New Orleans, LA.
68.
Sloan, K. (2004). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all good/all bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
71.
Tan, A., (2000). Fish cheeks. In Chin, B. A. (Ed.), Glencoe literature: The reader's choice. Course 2 (pp. 77-79). Columbus, OH: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.
72.
Testing Section, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). Understanding testing at Grades 3-8 : Background, 6 (1). Raleigh, NC: Author .
73.
Testing Section, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2001). Focused holistic scoring guide: The point-of-view/ expository composition. Grade 7. 2000-2001. Raleigh, NC: Author.
74.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.
75.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
Wallace, V.L. (2002). Teachers and administrators under pressure: The case of Texas. In G. Hillocks, Jr. (Ed.), The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning (pp. 85-102). New York: Teachers College Press.
77.
Watanabe, M. (2005). Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Manuscript submitted for publication.
78.
Wiggins, G., & MacTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
79.
Writing Study Group, National Council for Teachers of English. (2004). NCTE beliefs about the teaching of writing. Retrieved on January 10, 2005, from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/write/I18876.htm
