School counselors' perceptions of the impact of high-stakes testing.

Two studies of school counselors' perceptions of the impact of the North Carolina ABC (high-stakes) testing program are reported. (For ease of interpretation, percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number in both studies.) One hundred forty-one counselors who attended their state association's professional conference participated in study one, and a random sample of 139 school counselors, members of the state school counseling association, participated by mail in study two. Eighty percent or more of the counselors reported that they or another counselor served as the school's testing coordinator and that this function consumed a considerable percentage of their time. Although counselors noted some positive effects of the high-stakes testing program, they overwhelmingly reported that it negatively impacted their ability to provide services and their relationships with students, teachers, and administrators.

**********

It is difficult to identify the precise beginning of current efforts to reform America's educational system. Parr (1993) suggested that the publication, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), might have been one stimulus for the educational reform movement. Regardless of its origin, many facets of the movement continue. One aspect of school reform that has impacted many school counselors, including those in North Carolina, is high-stakes testing. High-stakes testing is one method departments of education and legislatures are using to set standards of achievement individually for students and collectively for schools and school districts.

Testing is not new to schools or to school counselors (Elmore, Ekstrom, Diamond, & Whitaker, 1993). However, determining the effectiveness of the educational process by using criterion-referenced tests and standardized tests is relatively new. It is presumed that accountability measures in the form of tests will promote higher educational standards and ensure equitable opportunities to quality education (Riley & Cantu, 2000). Because the results of the high-stakes tests are public and often carry significant rewards in the form of monetary bonuses and punishments such as state departments of education seizing control of local schools, the educational process has in all likelihood never been more pressure-packed. School counselors are heavily involved in the high-stakes testing program, and anecdotal reports on its impact on their functioning abound. Although research has been conducted about the effects of high-stakes testing on teachers (see Cimbricz, 2002 for a review) and on student learning (e.g., Amrein & Berliner, 2002), to this point systematic efforts to understand the impact of high-stakes testing on school counselors and their programs have yet to emerge. The purpose of the studies reported here was to begin to address this oversight by studying North Carolina school counselors' perceptions of the impact of their state's ABC testing program on themselves, their programs, and other key stakeholders within the school.

METHOD

Context: The North Carolina ABCs of Public Education

"The ABCs of Public Education is a comprehensive plan to improve public schools that is based on three goals of strong accountability: an emphasis on the basics, high educational standards, and local control of schools" (NCDPI, 1999). An ABCs accountability model for elementary and middle schools was implemented in 1996-97, and the high school model was first implemented in 1997-98. State officials hold students, teachers, and administrators accountable for how well their students perform on end-of-grade (EOG) reading, mathematics, and writing tests in grades 3-8 and end-of-course (EOC) tests in some high school courses. The tests are based on the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, the state-mandated curriculum.

With respect to school accountability, the North Carolina State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction classify schools based on performance on the state tests. The categories described below are the ones that were used during the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002 when this study was conducted. A school of excellence is one in which at least 90% of the students tested performed at or above grade level (proficiency) and where the school met or exceeded expected growth. For K-8 schools, expected growth is a statistical calculation based on a school's previous EOG performance and a statewide growth average. For high schools, EOC rather than EOG indices enter into the calculation. In a school of distinction, at least 80% of the students performed at or above grade level (proficient) irrespective of growth. Schools with no recognition failed to reach expected growth but had at least 50% of their students at or above grade level (proficient). Low-performing schools failed to meet the expected growth standard and had more than 50% of their students below grade level.

Licensed staff in schools that meet expected or exemplary growth standards receive incentive bonuses. Schools that fall far below the growth standards are assigned an assistance team to help the staff to improve student achievement. Student promotion in grades 3, 5, and 8 and graduation from high school are based in part on achieving proficiency or a passing score on these tests.

Participants

Two studies of counselors' perceptions of the state's testing program were conducted. The participants in the first study were 141 school counselors who completed useable questionnaires at the 2001 North Carolina School Counselor Association (NCSCA) Fall Conference. The participants in study two were 139 randomly selected members of NCSCA who completed the questionnaire by mail in the spring of 2002.

Study 1. The 141 counselors who responded to the survey in first study worked in approximately 60 school districts of the 117 in North Carolina. Ninety-eight percent (n = 138) were full-time, and two percent (n = 3) were part-time counselors. Females comprised 90 percent (n = 127) of the participants, and males made up 10 percent (n = 14) of the participants. Ninety percent (n = 127) were White, European Americans, and seven percent (n = 10) of the participants were African Americans. The remainder was equally divided between Hispanics (1%; n = 2) and American Indians (1%; n = 2).

Most of the participants (97%; n = 137) served only one school, with three percent (n = 4) serving two or more schools. Thirty-seven percent (n = 52) of the participants worked in elementary schools, 36 percent (n = 51) worked in middle schools, 25 percent (n = 35) were employed as high school counselors, and the remainder (2%; n = 3) worked at K-8 or alternative schools. Forty-two percent (n = 59) of the participants had pupil loads ranging from 301 to 450. The remainder of the sample had pupil loads as follows: 28 percent (n = 39) 451 to 600, 13 percent (n = 18) less than 300, and the remainder (17%; n = 24) served more than 600 students. Fifty-eight percent of the participants reported that they served as the testing coordinator for their schools, 23 percent indicated that another counselor served as the test coordinator, and 19 percent (n = 27) reported that the ABC testing program was coordinated by either a testing coordinator or an assistant principal. Finally, 46 percent (n = 55) of the participants reported that they worked in schools that were categorized as having exemplary growth or were schools of distinction or excellence. Twenty-two percent (n = 31) of the participants were employed in schools with expected growth, two percent (n = 3) worked low-performing schools, 36 percent (n = 51) worked in schools that received no recognition, and less than one percent (n = 1) did not know how their school was classified as a result of the ABC testing program.

Study 2. The 139 counselors who responded to the questionnaire worked in approximately 43 school districts throughout North Carolina. Ninety-seven percent (n = 135) were full-time and approximately three percent (n = 4) were part-time counselors. Females comprised 89 percent (n = 123) of the participants, and males made up 11 percent (n = 16) of the participants. Six percent (n = 8) of the participants were African Americans, and 94 percent (n = 130) were White, European Americans. One American Indian (1%) also returned the questionnaire.

A vast majority of the participants (96%; n = 134) served only one school, with about four percent (n = 5) serving two or more schools. Twenty-seven percent (n = 19) of the participants worked in elementary schools; 39 percent (n = 54) worked in middle schools; 41 percent (n = 58) were employed as high school counselors, and the remaining 2 percent (n = 3) worked at K-8 or alternative schools. Forty-nine percent (n = 68) of the participants had pupil loads ranging from 301 to 450. The remainder of the sample had pupil loads as follows: 18 percent (n = 26) 451 to 600, 19 percent (n = 26) less than 300, and 14 percent (n = 19) more than 600 students. Forty-six percent (n = 64) of the participants reported that they served as the testing coordinator for their schools, 37 percent (n = 52) indicated that another counselor served as the test coordinator, and 16 percent (n = 23) reported that the ABC testing program was coordinated by either a testing coordinator or an assistant principal. Finally, nine percent (n = 13) of the participants reported that they worked in schools of excellence, and 13 percent (n = 18) were in schools of distinction. Twenty-one percent (n = 29) of the participants reported that they worked in schools that were categorized as having exemplary growth. Thirty-one percent (n = 43) of the participants were employed in schools with expected growth, 19 percent (n = 27) worked in schools that received no recognition, three percent (n = 4) were in low performing schools, and four percent (n = 5) did not know how their school was classified as a result of the ABC testing program.

Instrument

School counselors' perceptions of the impact of the North Carolina ABC testing program were collected using a questionnaire developed by the authors. The initial version of the questionnaire was mailed to a sample of seven school counselors who have served as field supervisors for a school counseling program. The field supervisors were asked to review the questionnaire for clarity and content and to make suggestions for altering the draft copy they received. The reactions to the initial questionnaire of all seven supervisors were collected via telephone and collated by a graduate assistant in the program. These data served as the basis for the final version of the questionnaire used in the studies reported here. In addition to requesting demographic information about the counselor, the school, and school district in which she or he worked, the final version of the questionnaire (available from the senior author) asked participants (a) to estimate the percentage of time they were assigned to activities related to the NC ABCs testing program in the fall semester of 2000 and the spring semester of 2001, (b) whether involvement in the program has influenced their ability to deliver counseling services to students, (c) for the major positive and negative effects of the program on students in their school, (d) for the major positive and negative effects of the program on their interactions with teachers, administrators, and parents in their school, (e) whether their involvement in the program had any influence on their thinking about their career in school counseling, and (f) for any additional information that they would like to share about the program. An open-ended format which permitted participants to write short answers to each question was used. These answers were then classified by content analysis into categories by a graduate student in school counseling and reviewed by the senior author.

Procedure

In the first study, the questionnaire was included in the packets of the counselors who attended the 2001 North Carolina School Counselor Association (NCSCA) fall conference. One hundred and forty-one participants returned usable questionnaires out of approximately 900 school counselor conference attendees. Because the response rate of approximately 16% was low, a second study was undertaken to collect additional data using the same survey instrument.

In the spring of 2002, 300 questionnaires, along with stamped, sell-addressed return envelopes, were mailed to a random sample of the 1,136 school counselors who were members of NCSCA. In order to avoid duplication of responses, counselors who received the mailed questionnaire were instructed not to complete the questionnaire if they had done so at the NCSCA conference. Approximately 2 and one-half weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up letter was mailed to nonparticipants urging them to complete the questionnaire. One hundred thirty-nine counselors returned usable questionnaires. Fourteen (5%) other counselors who indicated that they had competed the questionnaire at the NCSCA Convention returned blank questionnaires. Thus, the response rate for study two participants was 49%.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results (For ease of interpretation, percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number in both studies.) of the two studies are reported separately in this article. It was deemed inadvisable to aggregate data from the studies as the sampling procedures were different, (i.e., a convenience sample of self-selected NCSCA conference attendees in the first study and a random mail sample of NCSCA members in the second study).

RESULTS

Counselor Time Devoted to the ABCs Program

Table 1 contains counselors' estimates of how much time they spent in the ABC testing program during the 2000-2001 school year. The percentages were computed using the number of participants who provided estimates (n = 120 in study one and n = 132 in study 2) rather than the total who returned the questionnaires. As can be seen in Table 1, 43 percent of the counselors in study one and 23 percent of the counselors in study two who provided estimates indicated that they spent less than 10 percent of their time in the North Carolina high-stakes testing program in the fall of 2000. In the spring of 2001, approximately one fifth of them in each study spent less than 10 percent of their time involved with the ABC testing program. One quarter of the counselors in study one and about one third of the counselors in study two estimated that they spent more than 30 percent of their time participating in the high-stakes testing program in the fall of 2000. These percentages were 39 percent and 38 percent respectively for the spring semester of 2001. As can be seen, a substantial percentage of counselors in both studies estimated that they spent more than 50 percent of their time in the high-stakes testing program during both semesters.

Perceived Effects of the ABCs on Delivery of Counseling Services

With respect to whether participating in the ABC testing program had influenced their ability to deliver services, 85 percent (n = 120) of the participants in study one and 91 percent (n = 126) of the counselors in study two answered that it had. Most added that it had negatively impacted their ability to deliver counseling services. For example, 25 percent (n = 35) in study one reported that they were unable to deliver counseling services, and 20 percent (n = 28) indicated that their involvement in the ABC testing program had resulted in their being inaccessible to students. Thirty-three percent of the participants in study one (n = 46) indicated that participating in the ABC testing program had reduced both the time and their availability, to provide counseling services. Participants in study two listed inaccessibility to students (76%; n =106) and inability to deliver counseling services (23%; n = 33) as some of the negative aspects of participating in the high-stakes testing program.

Many counselors in both studies listed other responses indicating that they perceived that their participation in the ABC testing program had negatively impacted either their ability to deliver services or them personally. In study one, five counselors (4%) said that job stress had increased. Neglecting the needs of students (6%; n = 7), the need to rearrange their schedules (6%; n = 7), inability to provide classroom guidance (5%; n = 6), inability to run groups (5%; n = 6), doing lower quality work (2%; n = 3), inability to follow up on referrals (2%; n = 2), and lowered rapport with students (1%; n = 1) were all listed as problems perceived to have been created or exacerbated by participating in the ABC testing program, according to participants in study one. For the most part, participants in study two mirrored these comments.

Although the perceived impact of the ABC testing program on North Carolina counselors' functioning appeared to be largely negative, a few participants volunteered that it had positive effects. For example, 3 percent (n = 4) and 6 percent (n = 8) of the participants in studies one and two respectively reported having more of a focus on low-performing students. A few counselors in study one reported having more time for students (1%; n = 2), and lowered testing responsibility (1%; n = 2). It may be that these positive outcomes are the result of the presence of a testing coordinator, but other unspecified factors may have contributed to these observations.

Perceived Positive Effects of the ABCs Program

With respect to the perceived positive impacts of the program, counselors' answers are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. One fifth of the counselors in study one and over one quarter of the counselors in study two indicated that there were no positive benefits for the students growing out of the ABC testing program. Moreover, an additional 3 percent (n = 4) of the counselors in study one and 7 percent (n = 10) of the counselors in study two either answered that they were unsure if there were any positive benefits of the ABC testing program for students or provided no answer.

Although there are some inconsistencies between the perceptions of the counselors in the two studies, substantial numbers of counselors in both studies felt that students benefited from the ABCs because of increased accountability (18%; n = 26 and 14%; n = 19), that more students received encouragement to achieve (10%; n = 14 and 7%; n = 10), and benefited from greater consistency in teaching because teachers followed a standard course of study (10%; n = 14 and 23%; n = 32). A few counselors in both studies also mentioned that there seemed to be a greater emphasis on helping at-risk students as a result of the ABC testing program (6%; n = 8 and 6%; n = 8) as well as other positive benefits for students.

As can be seen in Table 3, over one quarter of the counselors in both studies responded that the ABC testing program had not produced any positive benefits in their interactions with parents, teachers, and/or administrators, and an additional 21 percent (n = 29) in study one and 13 percent (n = 18) in study two provided no answers to this question. Taken together these percentages suggest that more than 40 percent of the counselors in each study either perceived no positive impact of the high-stakes testing program on their interactions with teachers, administrators, and parents, or they did not identify any on our questionnaire.

With respect to the positive impacts of the program that were perceived, the counselors in study one indicated that their schools had a common goal (17%; n = 24) and that the program had resulted in more contact with parents (17%; n = 14) as well as higher expectations (6%; n = 8), and a standardized curriculum (6%; n = 87). The counselors in study two pointed to teachers placing greater emphasis on the North Carolina standardized curriculum (15%; n = 21) as a positive outcome of the high-stakes testing program, followed by the school having a common goal (8%; n = 11), and more contact with parents (6%; n = 8).

Perceived Negative Effects of the ABCs Program

Participants were also asked to about the negative effects of the ABC testing program on students and on counselor interactions with teachers, administrators, and parents. Their replies are summarized in Table 4 and 5 respectively.

The majority of participants in both studies perceived that the ABC testing program had a negative impact on students. For example, 80 percent of the counselors in study one and 50 percent of the counselors in study two believed that high-stakes testing had increased the stress, anxiety, pressure, or the level of fear that students experienced. Some counselors in both studies also believed that teaching to the test (19%; n = 27 and 19%; n = 26), and lack of creativity in the classroom (11%; n = 15 and 14%; n = 19) negatively influenced students. As can be seen in Table 4, smaller numbers of counselors listed a potpourri of other negative outcomes of the ABC testing program on students.

As can be seen from Table 5, many counselors perceived that teachers and others are under greater stress as a result of the ABC testing program, a finding that parallels their view of the impact of the program on students. Twenty-eight percent (n = 40) of the counselors in study one and 26 percent (n = 36) of the counselors in study two listed the stress resulting from the ABC testing program on teachers and others as negatively influencing their interactions. In what may be a related finding, 13 percent (n = 18) of the counselors in study one and 4 percent (n = 5) of the counselors in study two indicated that the quality of their relationships with teachers had decreased because of the ABC testing program. Other findings in study one indicate that high-stakes testing has resulted in counselors being seen as "bad guys" by some (9%; n = 12) and a misperception of the counselor's role (6%; n = 9). Counselors in study one also experienced resentment (11%; n = 15) as a result of the program. Decreased morale (7%; n = 10) and being seen as "bad guys" (6%; n = 6) were also mentioned as problems influencing interactions by counselors in study two.

Perceived Impact of the ABCs on School Counselors' Future Career Directions

The counselors surveyed were also asked whether their involvement had resulted in them reconsidering their future as a school counselor. Sixty-three percent (n = 89) of the counselors in study one and 77 percent (n = 107) in study two indicated that their role in the ABC testing program had resulted in their thinking about their future as a school counselor. Eighteen percent (n = 25) of those participants who supplied information in study one and 9 percent (n = 13) of the counselors in study two indicated that they were questioning their future as a school counselor. Seventeen percent (n = 24) of the counselors in study one and 8 percent (n = 11) of the counselors in study two said they were considering leaving the school setting. Five percent (n = 7) of the participants in each study said they were considering early retirement. Three percent (n = 4) and 6 percent (n = 8) of the participants in studies one and two respectively said nothing would keep them from being a school counselor.

In response to our final question, "Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the NC ABC testing program as it relates to your role as a school counselor," 30 percent (n = 43) of the counselors in study one and 15 percent (n = 21) in study two responded. A surprising low percentage of counselors in study one (6%; n = 8) said schools need test coordinators. Eighteen percent (n = 25) offered this suggestion in study two. Other responses to this question were primarily about role-related concerns such as the perception that counselors are now test coordinators.

DISCUSSION

Although there were some differences on individual questionnaire items across the two studies, overall they appear to present a similar picture of school counselors' perceptions of the impact of North Carolina's high-stakes testing program. For example, the results of these studies indicate rather clearly that the North Carolina ABC testing program consumes a substantial amount of school counselors' time as counselors frequently function as the testing program coordinator. Specifically, 81 percent and 83 percent of the counselors in our studies reported that either they or another counselor function as the testing coordinator for their school. These percentages are very similar to the 87.5 percent previously reported for a convenience sample of 80 school counselors in two southeastern states (Burnham & Jackson, 2000). As Burnham and Jackson noted, serving as the test coordinator is not compatible with the school counselor's role (e.g., American School Counselor Association, 2003; Gysbers & Henderson, 1994) as it is largely a clerical rather than a professional function and involves mostly counting, packaging, and manipulating test materials. More importantly, previous research has demonstrated that students enrolled in middle schools and high schools that more fully implemented comprehensive guidance programs had a variety of more positive outcomes including higher grades, better relationships with teachers, and feeling safer at school than students in schools in which these programs were less fully implemented (Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001; Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997). To the extent that serving as a testing coordinator interferes with school counselors' ability to implement comprehensive guidance programs, it also diminishes the positive impact that their programs can have on students.

Thus, it was not surprising that counselors in our studies perceive their involvement in the testing program as having a generally negative impact on their role as school counselors. This impact is reflected in a variety of ways, in (a) their perceived ability to deliver counseling services, (b) how they believe they are regarded by other educational professionals, and (c) how they think about their future career plans. Specifically, the average school counselor views the time devoted to the testing program as negatively impacting her or his ability to deliver counseling services to students, either as a result of reducing the time available to see students or as a result of students being less accessible for counseling. In addition, the participants frequently reported that the testing program has resulted in counselors having poorer relationships with teachers and in teachers and others having an "incorrect view" of the counselor's role. Finally, a number of counselors indicated that the testing program has led them to question their future as school counselors, to consider leaving the school setting, or to consider early retirement.

Although counselors view the testing program as having a somewhat more positive impact on students than on themselves--namely helping students to focus on school work and increasing accountability-the overwhelming majority believe that student stress and anxiety has increased as a result of the testing program. Similarly, the counselors tended to believe that teachers are more stressed and that their relationships with teachers have deteriorated as a result of the ABC testing program. Previous research with both students and teachers per se has demonstrated that high-stakes testing often has a negative impact on teaching and learning or fails to produce intended effects (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Cimbricz, 2002).

Overall, the counselors in this study view their involvement in the ABC testing program as having a much more negative than positive impact on their role, their functioning, and their relations with students and teachers. Although we can't know for sure, it is likely that the counselors' views were influenced, at least in part, by the time that participating in the ABC testing program takes away from their other functions and by the more limited access that they now perceive that they have to students because of the program.

Proponents of the ABCs may see the negative impact of the testing program on the school counselor as an unfortunate but necessary cost. Conversely, we hope that these findings will result in advocates for high-stakes testing programs to question whether using school counselors as test administrators is the most cost effective use of their time. For example, it may be a more effective use of counselor's expertise for them to lead study skills and test preparation efforts for groups of low-performing students rather than to be involved in the time-consuming clerical and administrative aspects of test administration. Those responsibilities might be more cost effectively delegated to well-trained clerical or paraprofessional personnel. In addition, the counselor's expertise in testing might also be put to better use in serving as the testing expert in the school who interprets testing results and explains the testing program to parents and community members rather than in distributing, counting, and collecting tests or in arranging for test proctors. Thus our results when coupled with those from other research (e.g., Lappan et al., 1997; 2001) suggest that using school counselors as test coordinators is not the most effective use of their time.

Given the impact that high-stakes testing has on the school counselor's role and daily functioning, it is surprising therefore that such a small percentage of our counselors--6% in study one and 18% in study two--recommended that schools needed a separate testing coordinator. One possible explanation for this result is that individual school counselors feel powerless to influence this situation and are resigned to it, even though they believe that test coordinator is an inappropriate role for them to assume. If this explanation is correct, then major professional advocacy efforts on the part of state and national school counseling associations may be required in order to effect the changes necessary to enable school counselors to engage in a more professional role in the testing area. In this regard, an initiative on the part of the North Carolina School Counselor Association has resulted in the introduction of legislation to remove test coordination from the duties of the school counselor and to prescribe the percentage of counselor time to be devoted to providing direct services to students.

The current studies are certainly not without limitations. Principle among these is the fact the data for the time counselors spent in high-stakes testing is based on counselor estimates rather than on actual time logs. Given that our counselors had mostly negative views about the impact of the ABC testing program, it is also possible that they overestimated the time they spent in testing and subsequently devalued the use of that time as compared to the time spent in counseling functions. We have no reason to believe that counselors biased their time estimates, but time logs would certainly yield more accurate data about the amount of time actually devoted to the high-stakes testing program.

With respect to generalizability, we sampled only school counselors who were members of the North Carolina School Counselor Association, and their perceptions of high-stakes testing may or may not represent the opinions of school counselors who are not members of that organization. Moreover, it is important to remember that the two current studies involved only one state's high-stakes testing program. To the extent that the characteristics of other high-stakes testing programs differ from those of the North Carolina ABCs, the perceptions of the impact of those programs may differ as well.

Finally, although counselors can comment authoritatively on the perceived impact that a high-stakes testing program has on their functioning, their views of the impact of the program on teachers, students, and others warrants additional study. The value of accountability hi evaluation in education should not be underestimated. At the same time, it is important to have a more complete understanding of the costs and benefits of the high-stakes testing programs that often serve as the primary accountability measures in today's educational arena. This concern is especially pertinent given the signing into law of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which adds a federal mandate to already existing state mandates in North Carolina and a number of other states.

Table 1. Counselors' Estimates of Time Spent on the
North Carolina ABC Testing Program in the 2000-2001
School Year

                        Fall

              Study 1           Study 2
Percent
of         Percent           Percent
time          of                of
spent     Counselors   n    Counselors   n

0-10%        43%       51      30%       40
11-30        34%       41      33%       44
31-50        17%       20      26%       34
>50%          7%        8      11%       14

                       Spring

              Study 1           Study 2
Percent
of         Percent           Percent
time          of                of
spent     Counselors   n    Counselors   n

0-10%        23%       27      21%       28
11-30        38%       46      41%       54
31-50        23%       28      31%       41
>50%         16%       19       7%        9

Note. Due to rounding the percentage totals
may not always add up to 100%.

Table 2. Counselors' Perceptions of the Positive Outcomes of the
North Carolina ABC Testing Program on Students in Their Schools

                                                   Study 1    Study 2

Positive Outcome                                    %    n     %    n

None                                               20%   28   27%   38
Helps students to focus on school work             19%   27    1%    1
Increased accountability for teachers, students,
  school staff                                     18%   26   14%   19
Gives a chance to encourage students to
  celebrate abilities                              10%   14    7%   10
Consistency in teaching-focus on North Carolina
  Standard Course of Study                         10%   14   23%   32
More focus on helping at-risk students              6%    8    6%    8
More rigorous retention policy                      5%    7    2%    3
More parent involvement                             4%    5    1%    1
Attendance has improved                             1%    1    1%    1
Not sure or no answer                               3%    4    7%   10

Note. Counselors could specify more than one outcome.

Table 3. Counselors' Perceptions of the Positive Outcomes of the
North Carolina ABC Testing Program on Their Interactions with
Teachers, Administrators, and Parents

                                               Study 1    Study 2

Positire Outcome                                %    n     %    n

None                                           26%   37   29%   40
No Answer                                      21%   29   13%   18
School with common goal                        17%   24    8%   11
More contact with parents                      10%   14    6%    8
Set higher expectations                         6%    8    1%    1
Standardized curriculum                         6%    7   15%   21
More opportunities for consultation             4%    5    4%    6
Financial incentive                             3%    4    1%    1
Good press for schools with good test scores    2%    3    1%    1
Better achievement                              2%    3    1%    2
Consistent standard for identifying at-risk     1%    1    9%   13
  students

Note. Counselors could specify more than one outcome.

Table 4. Counselors' Perceptions of the Negative Outcomes of the
North Carolina ABC Testing Program on Students in Their Schools

                                              Study 1      Study 2

Negative Outcome                              %     n       %      n

Stress/anxiety/fear/pressure                 80%   113   50%       69
Teaching to the test                         19%    27   19%       26
No creativity in classroom                   11%    15   14%       19
Neglect of subjects not tested in the ABC    10%    14    1%        1
  program
More slow learners and bad test takers        8%    11    0%        0
Lowered self-confidence/esteem                7%    10    1%        1
Too much time involved; too many tests        7%    10    1%        1
Too much emphasis on tests; no more fan in    5%     7    1%        2
  schools
Kids labeled, feel incompetent; needs not     3%     4    1% (a)    1
  met; "I don't care" attitude; lowered
  teaching skills; evervone overwhelmed;
  failure
Kids not challenged, do not like school;      2%     3    1% (a)    1
  classes canceled/no learning;
Increase in EC referrals, suspension/         1%     3    1% (a)    1
  behavior problems; tests biased; less
  time for relationships; lowered morale;
  test avoidance;
Other                                         1%     1    1%        1

Note. Counselors could specify more than one outcome.

(a) Examples of responses in these categories listed one time
by the participants.

Table 5. Counselors' Perceptions of the Negative Outcomes of the
North Carolina ABC Testing Program on Their Interactions with
Teachers, Administrators, and Parents

                                                 Study 1    Study 2

Negative Outcome                                  %    n     %    n

Teachers and others stressed                     28%   40   26%   36
Decreased relationships with teachers            13%   18    4%    5
Too much time spent on testing                   11%   15   12%   12
Resentment                                       11%   15    1%    1
Counselors seen as "bad guys"                     9%   12    6%    6
Incorrect view on counselor role                  6%    9    0%    0
Decreased morale                                  3%    4    7%    7
Manipulating EC/504 services                      3%    4    1%    1
Administrators do not support teachers; losing    2%    3    1%    1
  teachers; unreasonable expectations placed
  on kids; none
Decreased relationships with teachers             2%    3    4%    4

Note: Counselors could specify more than one outcome.

We thank Dean Madeleine Grumet and the School of Education at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for providing financial support for the study.

References

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved September 16, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.

The American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA notional model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Burnham, J. J., & Jackson, J. J. (2000). School counselor roles: Discrepancies between actual practice and existing models. Professional School Counseling, 4, 41-49.

Cimbricz, S. (2002, January 9). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved September 16,2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n2.

Elmore, P.B., Ekstrom, R. B., Diamond, E. E., & Whittaker, S. (1993). School counselors' test use patterns and practices. The School Counselor, 41, 73-80.

Gysbers, N.C., & Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing your school guidance program. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Lapan, R.T., Gysbers, N. C, & Petroski, G. F. (2001). Helping seventh graders be safe and successful: A statewide study of the impact of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 320-330.

Lapan, R.T., Gysbers, N. C., & Sun, Y. (1997).The impact of more fully implemented guidance programs on the school experiences of high school students: A statewide evaluation study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 75, 292-302.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). The ABCs of public education. Raleigh, NC: Author.

Parr, G. (1993). Educational reforms in Texas and their implications for school counselors. The School Counselor, 41, 44-47.

Riley, R., & Cantu, N. (2000). The use of tests as part of high-stakes decision-making for students: A resource guide for educators and policy makers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

Duane Brown, Ph.D., is a professor, John P. Galassi, Ph.D., is a professor, and Patrick Aims, Ph.D., is an assistant professor. All are with the School Counseling Program, School of Education, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.