This descriptive study examined school professionals' perspectives of the effects of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities. Participants were 249 general education teachers, special education teachers, and school psychologists from 99 schools across 19 states that have required high school exit exams. Participants completed a survey that examined their observations of the consequences of high-stakes assessment for students. Results suggested that school professionals perceived there to be a range in the effects of high-stakes assessment. Participants' responses indicated that a number of consequences have increased in frequency as a result of implementing high-stakes assessments. Many of the items that respondents indicated have increased were related to improving school and student performance. Less frequently, participants also indicated that some consequences have not changed in frequency or have decreased in frequency as a result of implementing high-stakes assessments.
Abrams, L.M., Pedulla, J.J., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
American Federation of Teachers. (1997, September). Passing on failure: District promotion policies and practices . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall97/index.html
Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership , 60(5), 32-38.
6.
Barnett, K.P., Clarizio, H.F., & Payette, K.A. (1996). Grade retention among students with learning disabilities . Psychology in the Schools, 33(4), 285-293.
7.
Brennan, R.T., Kim, J., Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G.N. (2001). The relative equitability of high-stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades: An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard Educational Review, 71(2), 173-216.
8.
Clarke, M., Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion . NBETPP Statements, 1(3). Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/publications/v1n3.html
9.
Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J., & Li, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.
10.
DeCesare, D. (2002). How high are the stakes in high-stakes testing ? Principal, 8(3), 10-12.
11.
Defur, S.H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203-211.
12.
Fuller, E.J., & Johnson, J.F., Jr. (2001). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes? Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 260-283.
13.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing an accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.
14.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
15.
Holmes, C.T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer.
16.
Holmes, C.T., & Matthews, K.M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Reviews ofEducational Research, 54, 225-236.
17.
Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence of the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45, 613-635.
18.
Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37(3), 243-272.
19.
Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review , 30(3), 420-437.
20.
Linn, R.L. (2001). A century of standardized testing: Controversies and pendulum swing. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 29-38.
21.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
McLeskey, J., & Grizzle, K.L. (1992). Grade retention rates among students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 548-554.
23.
Quenemoen, R.F., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M.L., Thompson, S.J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report No. 34) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34.htm
24.
Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759.
25.
Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 97-227.
26.
Roderick, M., Jacob, B.A., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333-357.
27.
Roeber, E., Bond, L.A., & Braskamp, D. (1997). Trends in statewide student assessment programs, 1997. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Council of Chief State School Officers .
28.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 47, 84-88.
29.
Smirk, J. (2001). Alternatives to retention. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 3-15.
30.
Smith, M.L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing . Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334-344.
31.
Steeves, K.A., Hodgeson, J., & Peterson, P. (2002). Are we measuring student success with high-stakes testing? Educational Forum, 66, 228-235.
32.
Thompson, C.L., & Cunningham, E.K. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy (Report No. EDO-UD-00-0). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449241)
33.
Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities . Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 305-314.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
35.
Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J.R., Christenson, S.L., Johnson, D.R., Dennison, A., Triezenberg, H., et al. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75-94.
