Educational accountability policy rests heavily on the assessments used to influence teaching, learning, and school improvement. A long-debated aspect of assessment use, consequential validity, plays an important role in public interpretation of assessment use whether for individual students or for state policy. The purpose of this survey study was to explore stakeholders’ perceptions of the variety of tests used in classrooms and schools, especially how testing is used to improve teaching and learning. Results indicated that the majority of stakeholders do not value state assessments and do not see the assessments as useful in the teaching and learning process. However, a proportion of minority respondents were optimistic that state assessments have potential for school improvement.
AdamsJ. E.Jr.KirstM. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463-489). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AmreinA. L.BerlinerD. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
3.
BallS. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
BlackP.WiliamD. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 249-261.
6.
BoehmkeF. J. (2011). Policy diffusion dynamics in America. Political Science Quarterly, 126, 710-711.
7.
BorjaR. R. (2007, February21). Nebraska swims hard against testing’s tides. Education Week, 26(24), 32-34.
Calabrese BartonA.DrakeC.Gustavo PerezJ.St. LouisK.GeorgeM. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12.
10.
CamaraW. J.BrownD. C. (1995). Educational and employment testing: Changing concepts in measurement and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(1), 5-11.
11.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
12.
CechS. J. (2007, June13). Nebraska moves to statewide reading, math exams. Education Week, 26(41), 18, 21.
13.
ChudowskyN.ChudowskyV. (2008, May). Many states have taken a “backloaded” approach to No Child Left Behind goal of all students scoring “proficient.”Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
14.
CizekG. J.RosenbertS. L.KoonsH. H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397-412.
CobbC. D. (2004). Looking across the states: Perspectives on school accountability. Educational Foundations, 18(3-4), 59-79.
17.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L.GoldinG. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548.
18.
CookG. (2004, May7). The original “Brown” town after 50 years: Desegregated, NOT integrated. Education Digest, 69(9), 7-15.
19.
CrockerL. (2002). Stakeholders in comprehensive validation of standards-based assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 21(1), 5-6.
20.
CrockerL. (2006). Introduction to measurement theory. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 371-384). Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
CroninJ.DahlinM.AdkinsD.KingsburyG. G. (2007). The proficiency illusion. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
22.
CubanL. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school accountability. In SirotnikK. A. (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education (pp. 18-34). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
DavisM. R. (2005, February9). Utah is unlikely fly in Bush’s school ointment. Education Week, 24(22), 1, 21.
DishmanM.RedishT. (2010). Educational adequacy litigation in the American South: 1973-2009. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 16-31.
27.
DobbsM. (2005, May8). Conn. stands in defiance on enforcing “No Child” (Final edition). Washington Post, p. A10.
28.
DolowitzD. P.MarshD. (2012). The future of policy transfer research. Political Studies Review, 10, 339-345. doi:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00274.x
29.
DruckmanJ. N.JacobsL. R. (2006). Lumpers and splitters: The public opinion information that politicians collect and use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 453-476.
30.
EdgarW. (1998). South Carolina: A history. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
31.
Education Commission of the States. (2002). No state left behind: The challenges and opportunities of ESEA 2001 (ECS Special Report). Denver, CO: Author.
32.
Education Commission of the States. (2004). ECS report to the nation: State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Respecting the diversity among states. Denver, CO: Author.
33.
ElazarD. J. (1994). The American mosaic: The impact of space, time, and culture on American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
34.
ElmoreR. F.AbelmannC. H.FuhrmanS. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
35.
ElmoreR. F.FuhrmanS. H. (2001, September). Holding schools accountable: Is it working?Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 67-72.
36.
EntmanR. M.HerbstS. (2001). Reframing public opinion as we have known it. In BennettW. L.EntmanR. M. (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 203-225). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
37.
FennimoreB. S. (2005). Brown and the failure of civic responsibility. Teachers College Record, 107, 1905-1932.
38.
FinnC. E.Jr.KanstoroomM. (2001). State academic standards. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2001 (pp. 131-179). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
39.
FirestoneW.GonzálezR. (2007). Chapter 6 culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 132-154. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00100.x
40.
FischelW. (2006). Why voters veto vouchers: Public schools and community-specific social capital. Economics of Governance, 7, 109-132. doi:10.1007/s10101-005-0005-5
41.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42.
FullanM. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43.
GoertzM. E. (2001). Standards-based accountability: Horse trade or horse whip. In CornoL. (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume, NSSE Yearbook (Vol. 100, pt. 1, pp. 39-59). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
GoertzM. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 73-89.
45.
GoertzM. E.DuffyM. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 4-11.
46.
GrahamC. (1996). The evolving South Carolina constitution. Journal of Political Science, 24, 11-31.
47.
GreenD. R. (1998). Consequential aspects of the validity of achievement tests: A publisher’s point of view. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 16-19.
48.
GroseP. G. (2006). South Carolina at the brink: Robert McNair and the politics of civil rights. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
49.
HaertelE.HermanJ. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 1-34.
50.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
51.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
52.
HawthorneA. S. (2005, Summer). Education law: The opportunity in adequacy litigation: Recognizing the legitimacy and value of pursuing educational reform through the courts. South Carolina Law Review, 56, 761-778.
53.
HeckR. H. (2006). Assessing student achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 667-699.
54.
HowardJ. (2003). Still at risk: The causes and costs of failure to educate poor and minority children for the twenty-first century. In GordonD. T. (Ed.), A nation reformed?: American education 20 years after a nation at risk (pp. 81-98). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
55.
HurshD. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets, and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 605-622.
56.
JenkinsJ. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. and confederate houses. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1144-1165.
57.
JenningsJ. (2003). From the White House to the schoolhouse: Greater demands and new roles. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 102(1), 291-309.
58.
Joint Study Group on Adequate Yearly Progress. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in determining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC: Council of ChiefStateSchool Officers.
59.
JordanW. J.CooperR. (2003). High school reform and Black male students: Limits and possibilities of policy and practice. Urban Education, 38, 196-216.
60.
KaneM. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
61.
KarantonisA.SireciS. (2006). The bookmark standard-setting method: A literature review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 4-12. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00047.x
62.
KingdonJ. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
65.
KvaleS.BrinkmanS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
66.
LabareeD. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39-81.
67.
LaneS.ParkeC. S.StoneC. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs [Special issue]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
68.
Lees-HaleyP. (1996). Alice in validityland, or the dangerous consequences of consequential validity. American Psychologist, 51, 981-983. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.981
69.
LevinH. M.KelleyC. (1994). Can education do it alone?Economics of Education Review, 13, 97-108.
70.
LindleJ. C. (2009). Assessment policy and politics of information. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. (Eds.), AERA handbook on educational policy research (pp. 319-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
71.
LindleJ. C.CibulkaJ. G. (2006). Accountability. In EnglishF. W. (Ed.), SAGE Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 2-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
72.
LinnR. L. (1998). Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs [Special issue]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 28-30.
73.
LinnR. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
74.
LinnR. L. (2005). Issues in the design of accountability systems. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 78-98.
75.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L.BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
76.
LipskyM. (1979). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
77.
MajoneG.WildavskyA. (1979). Implementation as evolution. In PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. B. (Eds.), Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hope (pp. 163-180). Berkeley: University of California Press.
78.
ManheimJ. B.RichR. C.WillnatL.BriansC. L. (2008). Empirical political analysis: Quantitative and qualitative research methods (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
79.
MarshD.SharmanJ. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30, 269-288. doi:10.1080/01442870902863851
80.
McDermottK. A. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies?Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 153-176.
81.
McDermottK. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “blaming the victim?” The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 77-111.
82.
McDonnellL. M. (1994). Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation. American Journal of Education, 102, 394-420.
83.
McDonnellL. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution?Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 19-38.
84.
McNeilL. M.CoppolaE. M. (2006). Official and unofficial stories. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 681-699). Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
86.
MessickS. (2003). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. In BersoffD. N. (Ed.), Ethical conflicts in psychology (4th ed., pp. 263-265). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
87.
MooneyC. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 103-124.
88.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2005, March). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing (EPSL-0503–101-EPRU). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508483.pdf
89.
NicholsS. L.GlassG. V.BerlinerD. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20), 1-30.
90.
OddenA.PicusL. (2008). School finance a policy perspective (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
91.
PearsonP.GarciaG. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In Darling-HammondL. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 337-393). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
92.
PiersonP. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependency, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.
93.
PophamW. J. (2010). Everything school leaders need to know about assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
94.
RahnW. M.KroegerB.KiteC. M. (1996). A framework for the study of public mood. Political Psychology, 17, 29-58.
95.
ReckaseM. D. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer’s perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 13-16.
96.
RogersJ. S. (2004). Creating a public accountability for California schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 2171-2192.
97.
RoseL. (2006, April). A brief history of the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 631-633.
98.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
99.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
100.
SackJ. L. (2005, April27). Utah passes bill to trump “No Child” law. Education Week, 24(33), 22, 25.
101.
ShepardL. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 5-8.
102.
SouleS. A.EarlJ. (2001). The enactment of state-level hare crime law in the United States: Intrastate and interstate factors. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 281-305.
103.
South Carolina Code of Laws. (2009). Title 59. Education. Chapter 6. Monitoring implementation of education improvement program. Chapter 18. Educational Accountability Act. Chapter 25. Teachers. Chapter 26. In Training, certification and evaluationofpublic educators. Retrieved from http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/title59.php
104.
South Carolina Code of Laws. Title 59, Chapter 18, §900, (B). Development of Comprehensive Annual Report Cards; Academic Performance Ratings; Promulgation of Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/titl59.htm
South Carolina Department of Education. (2007, May17). Rex proposes new testing system, recommends unifying state and federal school accountability. Retrieved from http://www.ed.sc.gov/news/more.cfm?articleID=771
108.
SpillaneJ. P. (1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational Policy, 13, 546-573.
109.
StobertG. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.
110.
ThorndikeR. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
111.
TruittT. T. (2009). Going up the river of shame: The struggle for education justice in South Carolina. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
112.
TuckerJ. A.StoutenboroughJ. W.BeverlinR. (2012). Geographic proximity in the diffusion of concealed weapons permit laws. Politics & Policy, 40, 1081-1105. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00399.x
113.
TyackD.JamesT. (1986). State government and American public education: Exploring the “primeval forest.”History of Education Quarterly, 26, 39-69.
114.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES Report NCES 2007-482). Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.
WiliamD. (2000). The meanings and consequences of educational assessments. Critical Quarterly, 42, 105-127.
117.
WilliamsC. (2007). Out-of-the-box in Dixie. Orangeburg, SC: Cecil Williams Photography.
118.
WongK. K.NicoteraA. (2004). Educational quality and policy redesign: Reconsidering the NAR and federal Title I policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79, 87-104.
119.
WongK. K.NicoteraA. (2007). Successful schools and educational accountability: Concepts and skills to meet leadership challenges. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
120.
YanowD. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
