Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The outcomes of high-stakes tests (HST) in New York schools have consequences for teachers and administrators, as students’ results became quality indicators for school administration and instruction. Education consultant’s views offer an independent perspective of the HST environment. Data were collected from education consultants through a survey and interviews. Findings linked HST with reduced teacher control in instructional planning, curriculum narrowing and increased test preparation. These practices were associated with decreased collaboration and increased teacher and administrator stress. Foucault’s “governmentality” and concepts of neoliberal education policy framed aspects of the study. This study indicates that the consequences of HST require critical interrogation as HST practices have adverse impacts on teacher and administrator agency and student outcomes.

Keywords

High-stakes testing (HST)Foucault neoliberalism globalization New York schools

Introduction

Teachers and administrators in New York schools have been the focus of myriad changes in Federal educational policy purportedly designed to improve student outcomes and promote best teaching practices (Ingersoll and Collins, 2017). High-stakes testing (HST) is an example of one such change. Testing regimes are referred to as high stakes when assessment outcomes are applied to student graduation and possibly teacher and school administrator evaluation and employment (Menken, 2017).

HST is not new in education in the United States, becoming national policy with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. One objective of NCLB was to address the deficits and imbalances present in the US public school system, by improving academic achievement while closing the achievement gap between the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students (US Department of Education, 2002). Policies implicit in NCLB, including HST, continued under the Obama administration with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 and these remain in place under the Trump administration.

Concerns regarding poor education outcomes nationally underpin aspects of the national HST mandates. Research supports the contention that high-poverty schools are disproportionately represented in lists of failing schools with poor HST results (Blaise, 2018; Hursh, 2008). Despite concerted efforts to raise student achievement, the United States has not achieved conspicuous success in internationally comparative assessment programs such as PISA and TIMMS (Woessmann, 2016). While average student attainment levels vary markedly within and across countries, Hanushek and Woessmann observed that on International achievement tests in mathematics and science, the average 15-year-old student in Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan is more than half a standard deviation ahead of the average student of the same age in the United States (2015: 4).

Thus, among political leaders and policymakers within the United States, there were concerns that student-learning outcomes were unacceptably low and that this could have negative repercussions for the American economy (Auguste et al., 2009). These concerns, together with stated aims to promote and ensure racial equality (Scott, 2013), have been associated with the imposition of neoliberal policies in schools.

Foucault’s notion of governmentality is used in this paper to understand the ways that HST outcomes function as a mechanism for education policy reform by introducing new modes of neoliberal governance across education systems (Dean, 2010; Olssen, 2016). An important aspect of governmentality relates to the external control of conduct (Rose, 1999).

Governmentality is evidenced in the ways governing institutions interact with those whose behavior they seek to govern (Müller et al., 2017). Governmentality, described by Gordon (1991) as the “conduct of conduct”, implicitly promotes particular kinds of policy action associated with the privileging of preferred modes of behavior rather than resorting to direct conflict or coercion (Foucault, 1982; Rose & Miller, 1992). In this context, institutions or individuals capable of defining and controlling the way that HST outcomes are interpreted as measures for teacher and administrator competence may hold significant influence.

Neoliberalism, as a form of governmentality, incorporates a spectrum of economic and political principles espousing privatization and market mechanisms as the exemplar for economic prosperity. Accordingly, neoliberalism promotes unrestricted entrepreneurial autonomy as the model to achieve individual and social goals (Harvey, 2007). Neoliberal visions of schooling replace conventional education with competitive training and link schooling goals with the needs of the economy (Apple, 2017).

While economic globalization has resulted in increasing links between industries and economies, neoliberal policy frameworks aim to support this potential for economic expansion. This market expansion occurs while state interventions and checks are restricted (Ball et al., 2017). In education, neoliberal globalization is associated with intensifying private service provision (Hill, 2017). The co-occurrences of neoliberalism and globalization are associated with education being viewed primarily as an economic input. Through globalization, social progress is associated with economic competitiveness measured by global indices and benchmarks (Moutsios, 2010).

Neoliberal education policy discourses focus on the assumed failure of public education institutions (Croft et al., 2015). Central to this discourse is the supposition that the public education system is in crisis caused by ineffective public school teaching and administration. In the HST context assessment and reporting are not neutral mechanisms but part of a complex process of governance. The highlighted depiction of poor performance across schools promotes the urgency of intervention (Hay, 2009). In the contexts of neoliberalism, education reform, and globalization, student test results are interpreted as transparent measures of teacher and school effectiveness. State and Federal education policy have focused resources on systemic reform using HST procedures and audit approaches to schools and teachers to measure change in school and student performance (Verger and Parcerisa, 2017). HSTs are a central element of education reform in US schools. Test outcomes become the metrics of comparison, applied as indicators for the evaluation of students, teachers and schools (Au, 2016; Baird and Elliott, 2018).

The use of test outcomes as measures of school administrator and teacher effectiveness have potentially negative consequences for their authority and credibility (Lingard and Lewis, 2016). The accountability framework which grades teachers and administrators based on student results reflects a “business rationality” prioritizing uniformity and market principles (Cochran-Smith and Villegas, 2015; Hursh, 2015).

The processes and outcomes of assessment make teaching and learning practices and outcomes available for evaluation and intervention (Rose and Miller, 1992). This occurs since test outcomes provide measures enabling school instruction and administration processes to be monitored (Rose, 1999). Schools with histories of poor student learning outcomes are more likely to be subject to external intervention and direction by state authorities.

Governmentality provides a lens to examine the intensification of top-down interventions by the US Federal Department of Education using HST in a neoliberal policy environment. Neoliberal governance is associated with the rise of private agency participation and management in assessment and evaluation in education (Peters, 2017). HST assessment results are key measures, published annually, against which teachers and administrators may measure themselves, their peers and schools. Vinson and Ross described HST as a, “spiraling surveillance-spectacle” (2003: 252) associated with standardization and compliance. Foucault (1977) applied the image of the panopticon as a system for the observation and direction of individuals by central agencies. Torabian suggested that the world of, “the panopticon becomes what we take to be ‘the truth’ and the means by which we establish, judge, and seek the truth” (2018: 80). HST may be linked to ‘panoptic’ supervision resulting in system wide compliance. In this way, the HST surveillance context has been linked to escalating conformity and declines in creativity and innovation in educational provision (Appel, 2019).

Concerns regarding the consequences of poor test results may mean that a focus on testing became central to all instructional effort (Kohn, 2000). In this context, an increasing focus on test preparation has emerged in US classrooms. There are suggestions that, over time, neoliberal policy has replaced practices that were generally inclusive and egalitarian with increasingly market and profit driven strategies (Hall and O’Shea, 2013). Neoliberal approaches assume that markets rather than public institutions achieve progress and promote advancement in education (Anderson and Donchik, 2016). One justification for the increased level of assessment has been a quest for accountability. Proponents of HST emphasize the importance of making teachers, schools, and systems accountable for student learning outcomes (Labaree, 2014).

Critics of neoliberal policies in education are concerned that the HST focus has increased inequality and initiated increased criticism of the education system and the teaching profession (Croft et al., 2015). Teacher quality is critical to improving student learning outcomes (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2010) and a significant body of research has documented the processes by which teachers improve their practice. Jackson and Bruegmann (2009) showed that teachers improve when exposed to higher quality peers, indicating that part of teacher improvement is contingent on learning from other teachers. This learning process often incorporates collaborative practice. Teachers may collaborate to share resources, plan lessons, develop assessments, study curriculum, and otherwise improve their teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Collaborative practice has been associated with increased skill acquisition in teachers and improved student learning outcomes.

Accordingly, research points to the need to promote collaborative planning and professional learning to contribute to improved outcomes for students in low-income, high-poverty urban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2008). By contrast, neoliberal education policy approaches tend to replace collaboration by individualizing responsibility and promoting competition among teachers (Holloway and Brass, 2018).

School-based education consultants have been a feature of schools in the US for many years. In the New York context, neoliberalism has been associated with the rise of competitive contract funding for education consultants. Private education consultancy pre-dated NCLB but the engagement of consultants has increased since the Act was passed. As Burch contended, there has been a shift towards, “… a growing market for products and services driven by Federal and local accountability mandates” (2009: 2589). The increasingly evaluative assessment context has been linked to an increase in school consultancy services. Denton et al. (2007: 540) have noted

evidence that professional development with characteristics typical of coaching or mentoring approaches is associated with better outcomes in terms of sustained impact on teacher practice.

In addition, education consultants may be seen as innovators. McGuinn suggested that consultants may provide the initial, “heavy lift” (2012a: 42) of systemic change to deliver improved practice. McGuinn also commented that, “hiring outside consultants on an as needed basis … enables [systems] to be more flexible in their personnel decisions and prevents the need to ‘bulk up’ the state education agency” (2012b: 42). Grob and Kieser suggested that, “in the private sector, companies that are held internally and externally accountable for how they ‘handle’ uncertainty will contract consultants as a sign of good management” (2006: 70). School-based and regional administrators have sought support to meet the increasingly structured accountability mechanisms associated with neoliberal schooling reform. In this context, school-based improvement efforts which include the appointment of consultants may be more likely to achieve support.

Education consultancy has grown as education has developed a more global focus (Lingard and Rizvi, 2010) and as public education services have become privatized (Ball, 2012). Education consultancy strategies may incorporate a range of roles. School consultancy may focus on instructional procedure, professional development or routines for devising embedded practice (Morrison et al., 2019). Education consultants, the participants in this study, also may be considered part of a privatization agenda.

The impact of HST has been researched from a range of perspectives including students (Thompson and Allen, 2012), parents (Peters and Oliver, 2009), teachers (Au and Gourd, 2013; Nichols and Dawson, 2012), school administrators (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2010), and school systems (Penuel et al., 2016). However, the role of educational consultancy and coaching in school settings has been under-researched (Fullan, 2007; Taylor, 2008). This research investigated the influence of HST from the perspective of education consultants who have a critical role in providing job-embedded professional development and capacity building. Consultants offer unique insights into education in the HST environment as they work with teachers and school administrators and, as such, can provide whole school perspectives. This research contributes to the understanding of the impact of HST from the standpoint of practitioners who are insiders in the school context (Teusner, 2016).

The study context

The first-named author has been a consultant for NY schools for over 10 years. During the course of this work, discussion was had with teachers concerning the impact of HST on their work and whether HST was “working” as an educational strategy. Some school personnel endorsed HST, while others vehemently challenged its “validity”. The range of contrasting views and understandings expressed prompted further research investigation into HST and its consequences for schools.

During the course of their work, education consultants routinely observe the practice of teachers and administrators, and therefore could provide a hitherto relatively untapped perspective on the influence of HST on teachers and administrators’ practice.

The research focus on New York schools and State Department policies is significant. The New York City Department of Education (DOE) remains the largest school district in the US (NYU Steinhardt, 2019). The New York schools are also highly segregated, serving a significant proportion of low-income students with low graduation rates (Brathwaite, 2017). Data from the DOE confirm that a majority of students (74%) are economically disadvantaged (New York City Department of Education, 2019). On this basis, education policy processes and their impacts may be more evident in New York than in smaller or less diverse systems.

Methods

The research was conducted using a sequential mixed-method design (see Creswell, 2014). The research included an online survey incorporating open-ended text responses and semi-structured interviews conducted with eight consultants. Consultants were briefed regarding the research project during a meeting in New York and invited to provide contact details. There was a significant interest in the research project with 180 consultants volunteering email contact details with a view to participating in the research. This paper reports on qualitative data collected through open-ended text responses provided as part of the online survey and semi-structured interviews. The interviews were undertaken to more fully investigate the views of consultants following the conclusion of the online survey.

Consultants were invited by email to complete the online survey. The resultant quantitative data was examined using Kruskal-Wallis tests to establish the significance of associations between participants personal details and item-based responses. In qualitative research design one objective is to purposefully sample cases to obtain insights into particular educational processes and practices prevalent in specific areas (Connolly, 1998). The Kruskal-Wallis outcomes suggested recruitment of interview participants based on a range of education sectors (elementary, middle, and secondary) and curriculum specializations (Creswell and Creswell, 2017).

In the course of completing the initial survey, respondents had the option of providing open-ended text responses to four questions regarding HST. The open-ended response questions were as follows:

What is HST? As an education consultant what do you understand by the HST environment?

Does the HST environment facilitate or constrain your efforts in implementing good educational practice in your consultancy work?

How does HST facilitate or constrain your collaborative work with teachers?

In your experience as a consultant does HST facilitate or constrain your collaborative work with school administrators?

The 109 participants who completed the survey provided a total of 267 voluntary text-based responses. As indicated in Table 1 between 62 and 70 responses were provided by participants to each of the open-ended questions.

Table 1.

Voluntary survey item responses.

Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4
70 responses	69 responses	66 responses	62 responses

The responses were initially analyzed qualitatively using Leximancer, a computer-based analysis tool that uses an algorithm to analyze text documents and to generate a visual lexical diagram to overview the data (Cretchley et al., 2010). This approach enabled a scan of the data to provide a snapshot of themes and concepts represented within it. Later, thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was applied to the survey responses.

Following the closure of the survey, eight consultants were selected to participate in semi-structured interviews following the selection procedure detailed above. The interview questions prompted participants to reflect on the practice of teachers and administrators in the context of HST in schools. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service into a Microsoft Word file.

Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The researcher identified and recorded recurrent themes and sub-themes from the interviews. Transcript data were coded manually to identify key themes and sub-themes that enabled representation and comparison of consultants’ reported perceptions and experiences of the school HST environment. These themes were derived, in the first instance, through multiple readings of the open-ended survey responses. This initial set of themes were then revised based on comparison with the interview data, and new themes created where appropriate. In this process, new themes were added and existing themes revised until the final set of themes was representative of the dataset. To help ensure the validity and reliability of the coding process a portion of the data was compared against the thematic coding structure by another member of the research team. Through this process, new themes were added and existing themes revised to establish the final themes representative of the dataset.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the host universities’ research ethics committee. Consultants were informed that their participation in the online survey and in the semi-structured interviews was voluntary, and anonymous. That is, any information that could potentially identify a consultant, school or district through the survey or interviews was removed and interview participants were assigned a pseudonym.

Results

Responses from the interviews and survey indicated a convergence of consultant concern that the HST environment had adverse consequences for teachers and administrators in a number of areas. There were views that test-oriented instruction, rather than maintaining a broad focus on teaching and learning, had become a primary goal for many teachers. Moreover, there was a general consensus that test preparation had supplanted more analytical and conceptual learning. The instructional practices associated with the HST environment appeared to be associated with reduced student engagement and increases in adverse behavioral incidents. Management practices associated with HST also appeared to be associated with less collegial and productive relationships between teachers and school administrators.

Test preparation and instructional effectiveness

Arrangements associated with test preparation may compromise instructional planning and reduce the effectiveness of teacher teams. Miguel, a math consultant of eleven years in New York (NY) schools, suggested that HST was associated with the introduction of performance management practices in NY schools. Miguel contended that teacher and administrator performance evaluations were based largely on “student performance” as evidenced by HST outcomes. Supporting his view, Amrein-Beardsley and Holloway recently reported that, “30 states and D.C. (61%; n = 31/51)” (2017: 2) including New York had legislated regulations that mandated such teacher evaluation processes based on state test results. Miguel was critical of longer-term implications of HST suggesting it was,

… leading to an overall decline in student learning outcomes and a narrowing of teacher focus and curriculum experimentation is on the wane because of it (T: G, 164–165)

The results of the survey and interviews identified a number of key areas impacted by the HST environment. HST had adverse impacts on instructional and administrative practice. Instructional practices conventionally considered effective (see von der Embse et al., 2017) may be abandoned in favor of test preparation practices. Schools sought to improve student outcomes on State Mathematics and Reading tests by restructuring timetables according to test preparation schedules. This meant that some schools gave students shorter lunch breaks and in others, school subjects not tested received reduced instructional time.

Ethan was a literacy consultant with 3.5 years of experience in New York Schools. He believed that the HST environment was associated with a teacher focus on delivering content rather than ensuring that students were learning and becoming more skilled and confident in dealing with the curriculum. Ethan observed an,

… imperative that teachers felt to get through the work so that, in their mind at least, they had ticked everything off come testing time. … whilst they may have been on point in terms of getting through the calendar of lessons, the kids were still so far back that the gap between the two was just like the Grand Canyon (T: B, 33–37).

The contention that teachers focused on completing the curriculum rather than ensuring student learning was, for Ethan, a critical issue. Ethan reported that he had voiced concerns about the importance of ensuring that students were able to acquire and master the content being taught. Ethan reported approaching school administrators about the bias of instruction towards curriculum completion stating, “What’s the point of moving onto the next unit or the next lesson if the kids or a majority of the kids haven’t yet mastered the first one?” (T: B, 52–53).

Claire, a literacy consultant, echoed this position. Claire saw curriculum delivery in opposition to what she regarded as effective teaching and learning. She supported effective teaching incorporating, “a broad curriculum, slow down the curriculum, deep units rather than doing lots of units very quickly to get through a whole lot of things” (T: H, 95–96).

Conventional instructional approaches focus on developing and refining student skills. Goals in the HST classroom environment appeared restricted, aiming to emphasize test-related skills and expeditious delivery of the instructional content. One survey respondent commented that skills not tested were neglected, noting that “Testing severely narrows the curriculum to those things that can be easily measured by pen and paper. No consideration is given to speaking and listening for example”. The comment appeared to suggest that the narrow focus of the literacy exams neglects critical speaking and listening skills in contexts. It may be that speaking and listening skills were important for student success in the conventional school curriculum, but appear to carry less weight in the HST environment.

These views are further reflected in a survey response that noted: “High stakes testing becomes an end in itself, rather than the means to implement and measure effective learning programs”, that is, teachers were not rewarded for devising and implementing more engaging or creative instructional practices. Rather, the goal is to complete the course of study or revision on time and in unison with other grade level teachers. In this context as a survey respondent noted,

Teachers are not trying rich activities and are not allowing students to learn through discovery in a collaborative environment. There is far more emphasis on a procedural approach to teaching and less emphasis on a conceptual approach.

That comment reflected the highly structured test preparation processes orchestrated in many NY schools resulting in a narrow range of instructional activities. Savannah, a literacy consultant of nine years’ experience said that the test preparation focus,

… took away from other areas which they had previously been doing, for example, analytical thinking so that they were kind of focusing … a much narrower range of skills (T: D 94–96).

Student engagement

In school contexts, where teachers were delivering instruction planned and paced by others, there were reported adverse consequences for student engagement. In a number of schools, “pacing calendars” were provided by school administrators, ensuring that subject lessons focused on particular content delivered on any given day. Teachers working in state-tested subject areas were required to be administrators to teach all their year-level subject classes the same lessons at the same time. Savannah observed that while there were, “… more lessons devoted to math and English … the students didn’t respond well to that … It was boring. Over time the kids lost some engagement” (T: D, 139–142). The reduced provision of instruction for non-tested subjects deprived some students of time in their preferred learning areas. A survey respondent wrote that, “students were bombarded with test practice. Students appeared to hate this, as they were bored, unmotivated and disengaged. The survey respondent further reported that, “Test practice was a waste of everyone’s time, a shocking waste of paper, and must surely be responsible for students’ bad behavior and disenchantment with school”.

Several consultants reported that students were only prepared for the exams in the sense that they were present for a course of instruction. Test preparation lessons were associated with a narrowing instructional focus aligned with the format of assessments. These lessons were not necessarily productive due to their instructional focus and tended to be associated with decreased student engagement and ongoing pressures to adhere to curriculum pacing timelines.

Teacher collaboration

The imposition of instructional practice focused on year-level test readiness interrupted the routine of teachers working collaboratively to devise instructional plans. In Claire’s school, the assistant principal was responsible for preparing test preparation curriculum work. Claire commented that the, “English AP would prepare all the work for all the classes and all the teachers” (T: H, 41–42). The assigned curriculum provided few opportunities for collaboration. The focus was on the test and the role of the teachers was to deliver the curriculum prepared by the school administration. Mason noted that the school-wide focus on testing resulted in staff, “… teaching in the same way or at the same time” (T: C, 87–88).

One survey respondent commented,

The strategies that are associated with test preparation provide a narrow base for learning. High stakes testing removes the influence consultants may have to promote collaborative professional work with a focus on improved learning outcomes (Survey: 3.27).

In this context, the state tests were a source of significant stress for teachers in that they reduced opportunities for co-planning and co-teaching. The HST environment compromised productive dealing between teachers and school administrators. As Miguel suggested, “… professional relationships between principals and teachers were seriously jeopardized by the high-stakes testing regime” (T: G, 143–115).

One survey respondent found the HST environment to be a “paradox”,

The conventional thinking was that increased pressure on teachers and administrators via the status of student learning outcomes would focus instruction and administration to leverage better student results over time. The actual outcome appears to be increased stress, instructional conservatism and a failure of professional confidence and initiative.

The HST environment appeared to disregard the needs of some students who were not learning content when it was initially taught. It was difficult to gain support to implement or maintain differentiated teaching and learning practices that might ensure improved teaching and learning. Ethan reported that he approached administrators to, “Build the capacity in the calendar of lessons for re-teaching but, as I said, it was in vain” (T: B, 57–58). For Ethan, the term capacity included an ability to review, revise, and re-teach material to ensure that students understood key elements of the curriculum. Ethan’s comment suggested that he associated HST with ineffective instructional processes. Implicit in these comments were concerns that pre and re-teaching, checking for understanding, and classroom discussions were side-lined by the imperative to complete the course of study.

This departure from effective teaching practice may be linked to a fear of failure in the HST context. Classes being held before the state tests appeared to focus on the external demands placed on the teachers and the school by the tests. One survey participant noted, “High stakes testing does not promote a functional dialogue within the school”. Teachers and administrators regard HST as a threat to their personal career trajectory” (Survey: 9.14). This perspective was elaborated in a survey response with the comment, “… teachers are concerned that the outcomes of the state tests may mean they lose their job” (Survey: 6.5.4). These comments related to New York State Department of Education policies incorporating student test outcomes into teacher and principal evaluation processes. Classroom teachers and school administrators were aware that the results on the state tests would be used as metrics to measure their competence. Poor HST outcomes for teachers, were associated with negative consequences for their performance evaluations. Mason, a literacy consultant, reflected on school operations prior to the annual state tests and commented,

… the circumstances with which the tests are actually administered probably lead to excessive amounts of pressure being applied on students, on teachers, on principals, on other school personnel and also tend to skew the curriculum towards just teaching for the test, which is not really the intention of those - or should not be the intention of those tests. (T: C, 48–52)

These observations indicated a consultant perception that productive pedagogies were compromised by HST in schools. Mason further indicated that pre-exam instructional practice meant that test preparation units replaced more effective teaching and learning practice. He noted that test preparation included, “The mass supply of pre-packaged programs that publishers put out and packaged very temptingly for teachers and administrators” (T: C, 129–130). HST prompted an increase in test preparation focused activity. The primacy of HST outcomes were assured since they were key measures in school evaluations (Quality School Reviews) published on the Department of Education website. In this context, Claire contended,

High stakes testing is central to strategic planning. Their meetings, the coaches and assistant principals - there was an assistant principal for English in the high schools - their work was centered on preparing students for the tests in a very narrow way. (T: H 91–93)

One consultant recalled an exchanged between two teachers, “… what are you doing today?” “Page 3!” (Survey: 6.5.5).Test preparation was associated with reduced opportunities to engage with effective pedagogical processes and practices. Instructional pacing calendars replaced collaborative planning meetings with consultants noting that some teachers believed that they were not trusted when the work was more high stakes. A survey respondent observed that, “High stakes testing seems to compromise the professional dialogue between teachers and school administrators” (Survey: 9.50). The test preparation phase of the school year may represent a time when effective teaching and learning strategies are side lined and replaced by narrow routines of tests practice and review. Consultants believed that teachers and administrators were intimidated by the context of HST. As a respondent reported in the survey, “High stakes testing is linked to a climate of fear. It discourages risk-taking and exploration” (T: G, 121–122).

These observations indicate a link between HST and teachers and administrators experiencing anxiety and doubt regarding their own ability to effectively teach students. A survey respondent commented the HST context was a discouraging one for administrators, “If they are in a poor school high stakes testing persuades them that they cannot do much to build student achievement” (Survey: 9.5.3). Research supports the contention that high-poverty schools are disproportionately represented in lists of failing schools with poor HST results (Au, 2016; Blaise, 2018). A survey respondent noted that, “… high stakes testing results have an adverse effect on low socioeconomic communities” (Survey:1.32). This statement described a discouraging context for disadvantaged school communities.

The interview transcripts and voluntary survey responses indicated that HST constituted a constraint to the maintenance of effective pedagogical practice and successful administrative practice. There were concerns that the HST context was associated with top-down initiatives which hampered differentiated instruction, reduced teacher agency and distracted administrators through a narrow focus on curriculum calendars and instructional pacing.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that the HST environment had adverse influences on the practices of administrators and teachers. A number of consistent themes can be drawn from the qualitative data regarding the influence of HST. The positioning of the tests as key school performance indicators meant that the focus of instruction was on test preparation rather than the longer-term development of students’ substantial analytical or communication skills. Consultants reported pressure for teachers and administrators to focus on preparation for the state tests. This pressure was often associated with the use of externally prepared, test-prep materials that simultaneously reduced opportunities for school-based planning and reflected an audit approach in preparing for state tests.

Consultants reported HST as being associated with increased administrator anxiety. In terms of their work with school administrators, consultants reported HST as being associated with increased concern that their school would face sanctions in the event of adverse state test results. The administration role in provision of test materials also compromised relationships between instructional staff and administration teams.

The interviews and voluntary survey responses indicated that consultants linked HST with constraints in their work with administrators and teachers. The proliferation of mandates associated with state student assessment schedules and outcomes has prompted a range of school responses.

These responses reflect increasing neoliberal influences on school operations such as increased managerialism, increased accountability for individual administrators and teachers, increased competition between teachers, and the widespread use of commercially produced instructional materials.

The focus on HST outcomes was associated with a departure from productive pedagogical practices and the introduction of year level-based, test-focused instruction. There was a general view that test preparation displaced and supplanted more analytical and conceptual learning processes. Paradoxically, there is no confirmatory evidence base for test preparation as an instructional practice. Research indicates that conceptual learning encapsulates the type of teaching that leads to gains on state tests (Kane and Cantrell, 2010).

The replacement of conventional instruction with test preparation appears to represent a retreat from positive pedagogical practice and a decline in teacher agency. The expectation of uniform instructional progression limited opportunities for differentiation, collaboration, and experimentation. The highly structured ‘Test Prep’ instructional model also had a corrosive influence on staff relationships.

In this context, collegiality was exchanged with competition. The decline in collaborative planning between teachers increased a sense of isolation and also increased potential for discord. In commenting on teacher practice prior to state tests a respondent stated that,

Competition between teachers increases as a result of high stakes testing but this is profoundly negative. The competition is not collaborative. It is corrosive and counter professional (Survey: 9.49).

Concerns regarding adverse outcomes of HST sometimes led to competition between teachers and undermined collegiality. A respondent associated HST with conflict commenting that,

High stakes testing sets up competition between teachers – who has the best test scores is seen as the most effective teacher when in reality there are so many other variables to consider. I don’t believe it supports a collaborative culture (Survey: 6.23).

Another respondent identified potential longer-term damages that HST brought to school communities observing that,

Teachers are not committed to collaborating when testing places them in competition against one another (Survey: 6.5.11).

In these ways HST and Test prep impacted in negative ways on effective teaching practice and further compromised consultant efforts to build collaborative structures in schools.

The theoretical basis selected for this study was Foucault’s work on ‘Governmentality’. The role of high HST under NCLB and ESSA may be considered panoptic in that it has induced schools, administrators, and teachers to continuously regulate their own practice in response to the systemic surveillance of schools afforded by test results. Individuals under surveillance tend to conform (Lyon, 2006). This research has illustrated that centrally mandated HST programs create a panoptic form of monitoring and surveillance that all students, teachers, and administrators are aware of and respond to in their work practice.

In the US a majority of states still use student exam results for teacher evaluation. Currently, 39 states are using student measures (including test scores) in their teacher evaluation systems. That represents a significant increase from 15 states in 2009, according to the National Council on Teacher Quality. There have been ongoing concerns that teachers in high-poverty schools are disadvantaged by being in schools with ongoing peer learning outcomes as measured by state tests. In 2019 the New York State Senate passed legislation that eliminated,

… the mandatory use of state assessments to determine a teacher or principal’s effectiveness and empowers school districts and teachers to make the decision on whether to use standardized tests in teacher or principal evaluations (The New York State Senate, 2019).

Despite this policy change, a range of sanctions remain in place for schools. These include directives that schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) may be subject to escalating sanctions including (a) restructuring, (b) turning the operations over to a private company, or (c) reopening the institution as a privately operated charter school (see Mathis, 2009).

This research has illuminated the effects of HST on the practice of teachers and administrators in the context of statewide HST. It presents the perspectives of consultants as they worked with teachers and administrators to plan for teaching and learning in the HST environment.

These research results challenge the instructional processes associated with HST. They indicate that HST aligned instruction undermines effective teaching and learning and compromise the process of improving teaching and learning practices in schools. The intensity of HST assessments has increased together with adverse consequences for poor student test outcomes. The influence of HST has fueled teacher and administrator anxiety in schools, reduced collaborative practice, narrowed curriculum offerings, and also expanded the programmed use of ‘test prep’ materials in tested subject areas.

It is necessary for school leaders, administrators, and teachers to be aware that HST and associated practices have unexpected consequences. The HST focus may degrade the capacity, curiosity, and effectiveness of teachers and administrators. These consequences further disadvantage children enrolled at schools’ subject to HST mandates. Professional practice and the promotion of collaborative planning may ensure more democratic school operations and build school capacity in planning and instruction.

The HST environment does not appear to play to the strengths of schools or the professional skills and resources of teachers and administrators. The environment fosters uncertainty, isolation, and undermines effective school operation. In schools which are already difficult to staff, an unintentional impact of HST has been to perpetuate a challenging HR context where teachers and administrators are likely to be less experienced and less able to provide the services required in Title 1 school communities. The collected data underscored a number of the adverse consequences associated with HST which appear to undermine teacher and administrator performance. The mandated state test program is implemented with little regard for equity concerns in high-poverty communities and operates at the expense of a broad curriculum.

On this basis this study recommends a renewed focus on proven teacher and administrator professional development. These would include collaborative instructional planning and resource preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2008). Teachers need opportunities to share productive pedagogies and approaches to review and foster student progress. These approaches would be achievable, effective, research-based and have broad support among educators.

HST could be replaced with a return to school-based, low-stakes assessment which would allow for more planned and effective instruction. These initiatives would promote collaborative practice and provide an environment for teachers and administrators to develop their professional practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

John Farvis

John Farvis has worked as an Education Consultant to schools in New York for ten years. His work has focussed on literacy and school leadership. John has also worked as a school counsellor, high school teacher and school administrator in Papua New Guinea and Australia.

Stephen Hay is a Senior Lecturer in Education and a member of the Griffith Institute for Educational Research at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Stephen’s research interests include education policy, industry-school partnership and post-school transitions.

References

Amrein-Beardsley

Berliner

Rideau

(2010) Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators’ responses to high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives 18(14): 1–36.

Amrein-Beardsley

Holloway

(2017) Value-added models for teacher evaluation and accountability: Commonsense assumptions. Educational Policy 33(3): 516–542.

Anderson

Donchik

(2016) Privatizing schooling and policy making: The American Legislative Exchange Council and new political and discursive strategies of education governance. Educational Policy 30(2): 322–364.

Appel

(2019) Performativity and the demise of the teaching profession: the need for rebalancing in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education (July): 1–15.

Apple

(2017) What is present and absent in critical analyses of neoliberalism in education. Peabody Journal of Education 92(1): 148–153.

Gourd

(2013) Asinine assessment: Why high-stakes testing is bad for everyone, including English teachers. English Journal 103(1): 14–19.

(2016) Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy 30(1): 39–62.

Auguste

Hancock

Laboissiere

(2009) The economic cost of the US education gap. The McKinsey Quarterly 2(Jun): 1–4.

Baird

Elliott

(2018) Metrics in education—control and corruption. Oxford Review of Education 44(5): 533–544.

10.

Ball

(2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. London: Routledge.

11.

Ball

Junemann

Santori

(2017) Edu. net: Globalisation and Education Policy Mobility. London: Routledge.

12.

Blaise

(2018) The effects of high-stakes accountability measures on students with limited English proficiency. Urban Education 53(9): 1154–1181.

13.

Brathwaite

(2017) Neoliberal education reform and the perpetuation of inequality. Critical Sociology 43(3): 429–448.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2): 77–101.

15.

Burch

(2009) Hidden Markets: The New Education Privatization. New York: Routledge.

16.

Cochran-Smith

Villegas

(2015) Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part 1. Journal of Teacher Education 66(1): 7–20.

17.

Connolly

(1998) Dancing to the wrong tune: Ethnography generalization and research on racism in schools. In Connolly

Troyna

(eds) Researching Racism in Education: Politics, Theory, and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press, 122–139.

18.

Creswell

(2014) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

19.

Creswell

(2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

20.

Cretchley

Rooney

Gallois

(2010) Mapping a 40-year history with Leximancer: themes and concepts in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 41(3): 318–328.

21.

Croft

Roberts

Stenhouse

(2015) The perfect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice 42(1): 70–92.

22.

Darling-Hammond

(2008) Teacher learning that supports student learning. In Presseisen BP (ed.) Teaching for intelligence (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, 91–100.

23.

Darling-Hammond

(2017) Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education 40(3): 291–309.

24.

Dean

(2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.

25.

Denton

Swanson

Mathes

(2007) Assessment-based instructional coaching provided to reading intervention teachers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 20(6): 569–590.

26.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (Translated by A. Sheridan) England: Penguin Books.

27.

Foucault

(1979) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Cited in Foucault M (1991)The Foucault Effect: Studies in Fovernmentality. University of Chicago Press.

28.

Foucault

(1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777–795.

29.

Fullan

(2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Routledge.

30.

Gordon C (1991) Governmental Rationality: An Introduction. In G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1–52.

31.

Grob

Kieser

(2006) Are consultants moving towards professionalization? In Greenwood R and R Suddaby R (eds) Professional Service Firms (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 24). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 69–100.

32.

Hall

O’Shea

(2013) Common-sense neoliberalism. Soundings 55(12): 9–25.

33.

Harvey

(2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610(1): 21–44.

34.

Hanushek

Rivkin

(2010) Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review 100(2): 267–271.

35.

Hanushek

Woessmann

(2015) Universal Basic Skills: What Countries Stand to Gain. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

36.

Hay

(2009) Managing globalisation: governing the subject and spaces of Queensland Education in the first decade of the 21st century. PhD Thesis. Brisbane: University of Queensland. Available at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/35942908?q&versionId=49700924 (accessed 3 October 2019).

37.

Hill

(2017) Speaking truth to power: building automatons: fait accompli for urban schools. English Journal 106(3): 83–86.

38.

Holloway

Brass

(2018) Making accountable teachers: The terrors and pleasures of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 33(3): 361–382.

39.

Hursh

(2008) High-stakes Testing and the Decline of Teaching and Learning: The Real Crisis in Education ( Vol. 1). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

40.

Hursh

(2015) Neoliberalism, markets and accountability: transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education 3(1): 3–15.

41.

Ingersoll

Collins

(2017) Accountability and control in American schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies 49(1): 75–95.

42.

Jackson

Bruegmann

(2009) Teaching students and teaching each other: the importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(4): 85–108.

43.

Kane

Cantrell

(2010) Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. MET Project Research Paper, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Available at: https://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/download/?Num=2683&filename=Preliminary_Finding-Policy_Brief.pdf (accessed 12 November 2019).

44.

Kohn

(2000) The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

45.

Labaree

(2014) Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record 116(9): 1–14.

46.

Lingard

Lewis

(2016) Globalisation of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability. In Brown

GTL

Harris

(eds) Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. New York: Routledge, 387–403.

47.

Lingard

Rizvi

(2010) Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge.

48.

Lyon

(2006) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

49.

McGuinn

(2012a) Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy 26(1): 136–159.

50.

McGuinn

(2012b) The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform: State Education Agency Capacity and the Implementation of New Teacher-Evaluation Systems. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

51.

Mathis

(2009) NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? Education Policy Research Unit. Boulder: National Education Policy Center.

52.

Menken

(2017) High‐stakes tests as de facto language education policies. In Shohamy

May

(Eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd edition). Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 385–396.

53.

Morrison

Ross

Morrison

, et al. (eds) (2019) Designing Effective Instruction (8th edition). Hoboken: Wiley Inc.

54.

Moutsios

(2010) Power, politics and transnational policy‐making in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8(1): 121–141.

55.

Müller

Zhai

Wang

(2017) Governance and governmentality in projects: Profiles and relationships with success. International Journal of Project Management 35(3): 378–392.

56.

New York City Department of Education (2019) DOE Data at a Glance. Available at: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/doe-data-at-a-glance (accessed 9 December 2019).

57.

Nichols

Dawson

(2012) Assessment as a context for student engagement. In Christenson SL, Reschly AL and Mylie C (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Boston: Springer, 457–477.

58.

NYU Steinhardt (2019) The Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Available at: https://research.steinhardt.nyu.edu/site/research_alliance/2018/09/25/nyc-public-schools-what-does-it-mean-to-be-the-nations-largest-school-district/ (accessed 10 December 2019).

59.

Olssen

(2016) Michel Foucault: Materialism and Education. New York: Routledge.

60.

Penuel

Meyer

Valladares

(2016) Making the most of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Helping States Focus on School Equity, Quality and Climate. National Education Policy Center. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578780 (accessed 11 December 2020).

61.

Peters

(2017) From state responsibility for education and welfare to self-responsibilisation in the market. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38(1): 138–145.

62.

Peters

Oliver

(2009) Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an era of high-stakes testing. Prospects 39(3): 265–279.

63.

Rose

(1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

64.

Rose

Miller

(1992) Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173–205.

65.

Scott

(2013) A Rosa Parks moment? School choice and the marketization of civil rights. Critical Studies in Education 54(1): 5–18.

66.

Taylor

(2008) Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In Mangin MM and Stoelinga SR (eds) Effective Teacher Leadership: Using Research to Inform and Reform. New York: Teachers College Press, 10–35.

67.

Teusner

(2016) Insider research, validity issues, and the OHS professional: One person’s journey. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19(1): 85–96.

68.

The New York State Senate (2019) Available at: https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-legislation-prioritize-students-education-over-high-stakes (accessed 15 July 2019).

69.

Thompson

Allen

(2012) Four effects of the high-stakes testing movement on African American K-12 students. The Journal of Negro Education 81(3): 218–227.

70.

Torabian

(2018) The quality panopticon in higher education: A comparative analysis of France & England. PhD Thesis, UCL (University College London). Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10041871 (accessed 28 July 2019).

71.

US Department of Education (2002) The No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf (accessed 2 June 2019).

72.

US Department of Education (2009) Race to the top program. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf (accessed 20 June 2019).

73.

US Department of Education (2015) Every Child Succeeds Act. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn (accessed 27 June 2019).

74.

Verger

Parcerisa

(2017) Accountability and education in the post-2015 scenario: International trends, enactment dynamics and socio-educational effects. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002595/259559e.pdf (accessed 29 July 2019).

75.

Vinson

Ross

(2003) Controlling images: The power of high-stakes testing. In Saltman KJ and Gabbard DA (eds) Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools. New York: Routledge Falmer, 241–258.

76.

von der Embse

Schoemann

Kilgus

, et al. (2017) The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional practices: a moderated mediation model. Educational Psychology 37(3): 312–331.

77.

Woessmann

(2016) The importance of school systems: evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives 30(3): 3–32.

Undermining teaching: How education consultants view the impact of high-stakes test preparation on teaching

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The study context

Methods

Results

Test preparation and instructional effectiveness

Student engagement

Teacher collaboration

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References