This article contributes to an emerging body of literature on the impact of high stakes testing accountability policies on implementation and teaching practice. It uses a theory of implementation, sense-making, to highlight the process by which policy and context shape teacher decision making. We focus on teachers in bilingual classrooms in an urban district in Texas where we found that teachers make decisions in an environment that exerts both formal and informal pressures to limit the curriculum they offer their students and privilege test preparation. Teachers struggle to reconcile their context, constituted by their students’ specific pedagogical and linguistic needs, with the pressures of their high stakes testing environment.
Achinstein, B.; Ogawa, R.T.; & Speiglman, A. ( 2004, Fall). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher socialization. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 557-603.
2.
Au, W. ( 2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
3.
Balfanz, R., Legters, N., West, T.C., & Weber, L.M. ( 2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools?American Educational Research Journal, 44, 559-593.
4.
Birman, B.F., Le Floch, K.C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., et al. (2007, August). State and local implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act." Volume II-Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
5.
Bishop, J.H., & Mane, F. ( 1999). The New York state reform strategy: The incentive effects of minimum competency exams. Philadelphia: National Center on Education in Inner Cities.
6.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. ( 1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & B2acon.
7.
Booher-Jennings, J. ( 2005, summer). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
8.
Callahan, R.M. ( 2005, Summer). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal , 42, 305-328.
9.
Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
10.
Coburn, C.E. ( 2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
11.
Coburn, C.E. (July 2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77 (211-244).
12.
Cohn, C.A. ( 2005, April). NCLB implementation challenges: The local superintendent’s view. Peabody Journal of Education. 80, 156-169.
13.
Cummins, J. ( 1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
14.
Cummins, J. ( 1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132-149.
15.
Cummins, J. ( 1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Darling-Hammond, L. ( 1990, Fall). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 339-347.
17.
Datnow, A., Borman, G.D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L.T., & Castellano, M. (2003, Summer). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 143-170.
18.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000, Autumn). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775-799.
19.
Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb
20.
Department of Education. (2001a). How No Child Left Behind benefits African Americans. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/nclb-aa.html
21.
Department of Education. (2001b). How No Child Left Behind benefits Hispanics. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/nclb-hisp.html
22.
Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J. ( 2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record , 106, 1145-1176.
23.
Dumas, M., & Anyon, J. ( 2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy implementation . In M. I. Honig, (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity . Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Echeverría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. ( 2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Pearson .
25.
Elmore, R.F., Abelmann, C.H., & Fuhrman, S.H. ( 1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
26.
Finnigan, K.S., & Gross, B. ( 2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-630.
27.
Firestone, W.A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. ( 1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
28.
Fuhrman, S.H. ( 1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB27). Philadelphia : Consortium on Policy Research in Education.
29.
Fullan, M.G., & Miles, M.B. ( 1992, June). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t . Phi Delta Kappan. 73, 745-752.
30.
Galucci, C. ( 2008, August). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114, 541-581.
31.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. ( 2003, February). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory into practice, 42(1), 4-11.
32.
Greene, J., Winters, M., & Forster, G. ( 2004). Testing high-stakes tests: Can we believe the results of accountability tests? Teachers College Record, 106, 1124-1144.
33.
Guzenhauser, M.G. ( 2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education . Theory into Practice, 42(1), 51-58.
34.
Hamilton, L.S., Berends, M., & Stecher, B.M. ( 2005, April). Teachers’ responses to standards-based accountability (Rand Working Paper Series). Santa Monica, CA: RAND
35.
Hamilton, L.S., & Berends, M. ( 2006, April 8-12). Instructional practices related to standards and assessments (Rand Working Paper No. WR-374-EDU). Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
36.
Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., & Klein, S.P. 0 (202). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
37.
Herrera, S.G., & Murry, K.G. ( 2006). Accountability by assumption: Implications of reform agendas for teacher preparation. Journal of Latinos and Education , 5, 189-207.
38.
Honig, M.I. ( 2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field (pp. 1-23). In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy Implementation . New York: State University of New York Press.
39.
Jacob, B.A. ( 2004). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
40.
Jacob, E. ( 1997). Context and cognition: Implications for educational innovators and anthropologists. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 28(1), 3-21.
41.
Kim, J., & Sunderman, G.L. (2004, February). Does NCLB provide good choices for students in low-performing schools? The Civil Rights project . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University .
42.
Koretz, D.M., McCaffrey, D.F., & Hamilton, L.S. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions. Los AngelesCenter for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.
43.
Krashen, S.D. ( 1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning . London: Pergamon Press.
44.
Krashen, S.D. ( 1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Long-man Group.
45.
Krashen, S.D. ( 1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. San Francisco: Alta.
46.
Kuehlem, M. ( 2004). Education reform from Gilmer-Aikin to today. Texas Public School Handbook: 1854-2004. Retrieved February 7, 2009 , from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/comm/tps_handbook04/pdfs/tps_gilmer_aikin.pdf
47.
Levitt, B. & March, J.G. ( 1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
48.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. ( 1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
49.
Loeb, H., Knapp, M.S., & Elfers, A.M. ( 2008, April). Teachers’ response to standards-based reform: Probing reform assumptions in Washington State. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(9). Retrieved May 9, 2009, from http://epaa/v16n8/
50.
Louis, K.S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. ( 2005, Summer). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’s interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
51.
Luna, C., & Livingstone, T.C. (2001, September). The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-stakes testing. English Journal, 91(1), 79-87.
52.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. ( 1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. H. Furhman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
53.
McNeil, L.M., & Valenzuela, A. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequity and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 127-150). New York: Century Foundation Press.
54.
McNeil, L.M., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable losses: High-stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3). Retrieved September 16, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n3/.
55.
McNeil, L.M. ( 2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How "Texas-style" accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57-111). Albany: State University of New York Press.
56.
Menken, K. ( 2006, Summer). Teaching to the test: How standardized testing promoted by No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 521-546.
57.
Menken, K. ( 2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
58.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, M.C.Hall, & Resnick, L. (2002). Accountable talk: classroom conversation that works (CD-ROM). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
59.
Mischler, E.G. ( 1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2005, March). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/early_research/g_l_new_doc/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.pdf .
61.
Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. ( 2005). Norms and politics of equity-minded change: Researching the "zone of mediation." In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 952-975). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
62.
O’Day, J.A., & Smith, M.S. ( 1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
O’Reilly, F.E. ( 1996). Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
64.
Palmer, D., & Lynch, A.W. ( 2008). A bilingual education for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas Elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy , 7, 217-235.
65.
Payán, R.M., & Nettles, M.T.Current state of English-language learners in the U.S.: K-12 Student Population . Retrieved October 13, 2008, from www.ets.org/Media/Conferences_and_Events/pdf/ELLsympsium/ELL_factsheet.pdf
66.
Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knotwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397-416.
67.
Reyes, P., & Rorrer, A. ( 2001). U.S. school reform policy, state accountability systems and the limited English proficient student. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 163-178.
Rustique-Forrester, E. ( 2005, April 8). Accountability and the pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale fromEngland. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 13(26). Retrieved [7/23/09] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n26/.
70.
Sandholtz, J.H., Ogawa, R.T., & Scribner, S.P. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1177-1202.
71.
Sewell, W.H. ( 1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation . American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.
72.
Simpson, R.L., LaCava, P.G., & Sampson, G.P. ( 2004, November). The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in school and clinic , 40(2), 67-75.
73.
Shohamy, E.G. ( 2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge
74.
Spillane, J.P. ( 2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S.(Spring 1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
76.
Stecher, B.M., & Chun, T. ( 2001, November). School and classroom practices during two years of education reform in Washington State. CSE Technical Report 550. Santa Monica, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/RAND.
77.
Stecher, B.M., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. ( 2003). Working smarter to leave no child behind (White Paper) . Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
78.
Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. ( 2008). Learning in a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
79.
Sullivan, G.P. ( 2006). The impact of high stakes testing on curriculum, teaching, and learning. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
80.
Sunderman, G.L., Tracey, C.A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. ( 2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. The Civil Rights Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
81.
Sunderman, G.L., Kim, J.S., & Orfield, G. ( 2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
82.
Supovitz, J.(2009, May). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 211-227.
83.
Texas Administrative Code. (1996a). §89.1201: Commissioner’s Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating Limited English Proficient Students. Texas Education Agency .
84.
Texas Administrative Code. (1996b). §89.1225: Testing and classification of students. Texas Education Agency.
85.
Texas Education Code, Title 2, Subtitle F, Chapter 29, Subchapter A, §29.053. Establishment of bilingual education and special language programs. (1995).
86.
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. ( 2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California-Santa Cruz.
87.
Valenzuela, A. ( 1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Ithaca: State University of New York Press.
88.
Valenzuela, A. ( 2000). The significance of the TAAS test for Mexican immigrant and Mexican American adolescents: A case study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 524-539.
89.
Valenzuela, A., Prieto, L., Hamilton, M.P. ( 2007). Introduction to the special issue: No Child Left Behind and minority youth: What the qualitative evidence suggests. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 1-8.
90.
Valli, L., & Buese, D. ( 2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558.
Wells, A.S., Holme, J.J., Revilla, A.T., & Atanda, A.K. ( 2004). How society failed school desegregation policy: Looking past the schools to understand them. Review of Research in Education, 28, 47-99.
93.
Wells, A.S., & Serna, I. ( 1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 93-118.
94.
Wolf, S.A., Borko, H., Elliot, R.L., & McIver, M.C. (2000). "The dog won’t hunt!": Exemplary school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 349-396.
95.
Wright, W. ( 2002). The effects of high stakes testing on an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners [Online] . Current Issues in Education, 5(5). Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://cie.asu.edu/volume5/number5/
96.
Wright, W.E., & Choi, D. ( 2005). Voices from the classroom: A statewide survey of experienced third-grade English language learner teachers on the impact of language and high-stakes testing policies in Arizona. Tempe, AZ: Language Policy Research Unit.
97.
Wright, W.E., & Choi, D. ( 2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1-56.
98.
Young, V.M. ( 2006, August). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education , 112, 521-548.
99.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, B., Booker, K., & Lockwood, J.R. , III. (2007, June). State and local implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act."Volume I: Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement . Washington, DC: Department of Education.
