Over 900 Texas teachers were surveyed on their perceptions of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), which at the time of the survey was Texas's high-stakes achievement test. The sample included elementary middle and high schools within each of four test performance levels: exemplary recommended, acceptable, and low performing. Respondents answered questions on how students were prepared for the high-stakes test and the effects of the test on their school and its curriculum, students, and teachers. Respondents reported that tested curriculum received increased emphasis, high-stakes testing did not motivate students to learn, and that the test was not an accurate measure of student learning or school effectiveness. Results indicate serious incongruence among proponents’ arguments for testing, teachers’ perceptions of test effects and the research on authentic pedagogy and student achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtS. F., & JolesC. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under a high-stakes test mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 86–91.
2.
ClarkeM., WalterH., & MadausG. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion. NBETPP Statements, 1(3). Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing on Public Policy.
3.
CostiganA. T. (2002). Teaching the culture of high stakes testing: Listening to new teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 35–42.
4.
DounayJ. (2000). High stakes testing is high-stress too. Education Digest, 65(9), 9–13.
5.
GordonS. P., & ReeseM. (1997). High-stakes testing: Worth the price?Journal of School Leadership, 7(4), 345–368.
6.
GrissmerD., & FlanaganA. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas.Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
7.
GulekC. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 42–50.
HabermannM. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290–294.
10.
HaneyW. (1999). Study of Texas Education Agency statistics on cohorts of Texas high school students.Boston: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
11.
HaycockK., & JeraldC. (2002). Closing the gap. Principal, 82(2), 20–23.
12.
HolmanL. J. (1994). An examination of potential dissonance between state mandated testing programs and certain philosophies underlying second language acquisition. Paper presented at the annual conference of Arizona Education Research Association/Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Tempe, AZ.
13.
HolmanL. J. (1995a, April). Impact of ethnicity, class, and gender on achievement of border area students for at-risk students on high-stakes examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
14.
HolmanL. J. (1995b, October). An examination of predictor of prior criterion-referenced test status, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status for at-risk students on a criterion referenced, high stakes test. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Educational Research Conference, Albuquerque.
15.
HolmanL. J. (1996, April). An examination of predictors of prior criterion-referenced test status, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status for at-risk students on the exit level administration of a high-stakes test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
16.
HornC. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure?Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 30–41.
17.
IngersollR. M. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis [online]. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, the University of Washington. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http://www.ctpweb.org.
18.
JonesM. G., JonesB. P., HardinB., ChapmanL, YarbroughT., & DavisM. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 199–203.
19.
MarksH. M., NewmannF. M., & GamoranA. (1996). Does authentic pedagogy increase student achievement? In F. M. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 49–73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728–734.
21.
MeierD. (2002). Standardization versus standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 190–198.
22.
ScheurichJ. J., & SkrlaL. (2001). Continuing the conversation on equity and accountability: Listening appreciatively, responding responsibly. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 322–326.
23.
ScheurichJ. J., SkrlaL., & JohnsonJ. F. (2000). Thinking carefully about equity and accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 293–299.
24.
SPSS (2001). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 11.5) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
25.
TyeB. B., & O'BrienL. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession?Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 24–32.
26.
WagnerT. (2003). School reform that works: Reinventing America's schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 665–668.
27.
WehlageG. G., NewmannF. W., & SecadaW. G. (1996). Standards for authentic achievement and pedagogy. In F.M. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 23–48) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
