TESTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACCREDITATIONSOL
Standards-based educational reform has resulted in the development of statewide "high stakes" testing that reaches into the heart of the instructional process, affecting teacher behavior, students' experiences, and the nature of subject matter that is taught. This investigation used a qualitative case study approach to examine the implementation of high stakes testing and accountability in seven Richmond area schools (3 elementary, 2 middle and 2 high schools) that represent seven school divisions and the broad spectrum of community types. Data were obtained from interviews of superintendents, principals and teachers, as well as from observations and reviews of documents.
The Findings
Superintendents were optimistic that the state accountability efforts will result in higher student achievement because schools would accept greater responsibility for student learning. Expressed concerns focused on the effects of content areas not tested, students with disabilities, dropout rate, and funding of other priorities. Some questioned the feasibility of the state standards for all schools and whether this effort would be longstanding. Curricula are becoming more aligned to universal standards and teachers are more highly motivated to increase student learning through coordination of instruction across the grades, school levels and content areas. At the same time, there is concern among teachers about the pressure to raise test scores by simply covering more content, especially if that means a reduction in more creative teaching and fewer enrichment opportunities for students. There is also concern about how test scores are released to the public, particularly if the release reports scores by individual teacher. The high school math curriculum, in particular, has been influenced by a greater emphasis on high performance.
Educational Importance and Implications
High stakes testing has a significant effect on teachers and schools, though there is little systematic evidence of the nature of the effect. In Virginia, because of greater diploma requirements in the four core content areas, the number of students that take elective courses may decrease. If the curriculum becomes heavily oriented towards facts and details, deep student understanding may be sacrificed. Standardization of the curriculum may be antithetical to creative teaching and may curtail innovation. Attention must be given to the development of teachers with regard to an understanding of the subject matter, knowing different approaches by which diverse students learn, and using a variety of teaching strategies. These findings suggest that high stakes test results should be constituted or defined specifically, so they have greater instructional and diagnostic value. Finally, research is needed to identify instructional strategies that are most successful in different content areas, whether curricula and teaching are stressing breadth of coverage rather than depth, and whether enrichment activities for students have been curtailed.
For More Information
To learn more about high stakes testing, accountability and accreditation contact the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium at http://www.edu/eduweb/merc or call (804)828-0478. 11/5/99