The domino effect of high-stakes testing and standards. (On-going Topics).

Abstract

This article was drawn from a qualitative study of pre-service teachers', public school teachers', and public school administrators' perceptions of the importance of specific kinds of content and methodology in an undergraduate curriculum course for pre-service teachers. The authors explained the initiatives put into action regarding standards and high-stakes testing in Florida and the subsequent effects. One of the major effects was that all three groups (pre-service teachers, teachers, and administrators) prioritized content that related to standards and high-stakes testing. More specifically, teachers' and administrators' top concern was how to prepare pre-service teachers to correlated instruction to standards. The authors speculate that these effects will most likely change the content and methodology of courses at the university level.

**********

Educational Significance

Recently in one of my undergraduate Curriculum and Instruction courses I asked my students who are pre-service teachers, "What do you think is the most difficult part of being a teacher?" I waited expecting to hear classroom discipline or the parents or planning. I was surprised by the number of students who voiced concerns about how to teach to standards and how to best prepare their students for performing well on high-stakes tests. Some were also concerned about receiving a poor evaluation if their students did not perform well on state tests.

Others echoed this concern about the effects of standards and high-stakes testing in a study done at the University of South Florida. The study originated within the department of Leadership Development when two faculty, Ann Lee and I were given the charge of laying the groundwork for updating and revising an undergraduate curriculum course.

There are currently several widespread trends in teacher education programs in the United States and specifically in the state of Florida. These trends include standards-based designs, accountability, performance assessment, and multiple measures of student performance (Diez, 1998; Moss, 1999; Blum & Arter, 1996; Marzano & Kendall, 1996; McConney & Ayres, 1998; Campbell, 2000.).

The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has recently developed new standards that encompass the trends mentioned above. The new standards have moved away from a course-based approach in which guidelines describe what should be covered in courses, toward a description of what teacher candidates ought to know and be able to do (NCATE, 99). The new standards require that evidence used for the decisions about a program come from assessments and evaluations of candidate proficiencies in relation to those standards. Moreover, the program faculty is responsible for documenting not only that candidates are meeting the standards, but also how well they are meeting them (NCATE, 99).

The issue of standards seems to be the primary position of interest in education across the United States. Although there is a current emphasis on standards in teacher education programs, the standards initiative began in K-12 schools in the 1990's.

In the state of Florida, there have been several initiatives put into action regarding standards and high-stakes testing. In 1991, the Florida Legislature approved the Florida System of School Improvement and Accountability. The system has six components: state education goals, school improvement process, student performance standards and assessments, local flexibility, performance indicators and reporting, and accountability for results.

Part of this system was further defined in 1996 when the Florida State Board of Education approved the expectations for student achievement. These expectations were named the "Sunshine State Standards." Initially Sunshine State Standards were written for seven subject areas and four grade clusters (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Today the Sunshine State Standards have been more clearly defined for language arts, math, science, and social studies with grade level expectations.

The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) is a state test that was approved by the Florida Legislature in 1999 to measure student achievement in grades 3 - 10. The test measures a student's ability to think critically and perform complex problem solving in relation to the Sunshine State Standards. According to the Florida Information Resource Network:

   The FCAT contains two basic components: a portion measuring selected
   benchmarks in reading, writing, and mathematics from the Sunshine State
   Standards; and a second part measuring each student's performance against
   national norms. Student achievement data from the FCAT will be used to
   report the educational status and annual progress for individual students,
   schools, districts, and the state <http://www.firn.edu>.

Thus, the FCAT is the basis for the School Accountability Report -- also known as Grading Florida Public Schools. In Florida for the 1999-2000 school year, Florida's public schools will be graded on a scale of A to F primarily based on meeting and improving criteria in reading, writing, and math as measured by the FCAT. Grades are announced and published each summer.

Research Design and Results

As a result of these initiatives in Florida, pre-service teachers, teachers, and administrators are focusing on standards and high-stakes testing. As part of the study, we surveyed over 600 students (pre-service teachers) in the College of Education who were enrolled in the undergraduate curriculum course. We also surveyed approximately 70 public school administrators and 70 public school teachers from school districts within our service area. The teachers were hand chosen by the principal as the school's best teachers.

Given 31 possible undergraduate curriculum course objectives in a survey and asked to rate the importance of these objectives for a future career in education using a Likert format, three objectives ranked at the top for all three groups (pre-service teachers, teachers, and administrators). The table given below summarizes the percent of the respondents who ranked the objective as most important. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fallp.htm>

It is interesting to note that all three groups felt that fostering creativity and problem solving is of utmost importance considering that is what the FCAT measures in relation to the Sunshine State Standards.

In addition, to the survey of course objectives, teachers and administrators were asked these open-ended questions:

1. What do you think the content of an undergraduate curriculum course should be?

2. What is the single most important thing that we can do in an undergraduate curriculum course to fundamentally improve teacher education?

The most commonly occurring responses to these questions from both groups (teachers and administrators) were that the course should teach pre-service teachers about standards, accountability, and high-stakes testing. Similarly both groups said that preservice teachers should be taught how to correlate instruction to standards. The following is a response given by one teacher that is a representative response from the teachers:

   An undergraduate curriculum course should provide new teachers with the
   ability to write standard driven lesson plans that address the FCAT.

Similarly, a principal responded by saying:

   A pre-service teacher should know how to design and implement instruction
   to replicate the FCAT questions -- critical thinking, short and extended
   responses.

Last, a high school teacher had this to say about the recent reform in Florida:

   An undergraduate curriculum course should help a pre-service teacher learn
   how to deal with the overwhelming state testing and how to convince a
   fourteen or fifteen year old that his/her performance on these tests is
   critical to his/her life.

Other re-occurring responses from teachers and administrators about what pre-service teachers should learn about in an undergraduate curriculum course were: inclusion, integration of technology, and integration of subject matter. The most preferred method of teaching was practical experiences.

Implications

The domino effect of implementing standards and high-stakes testing has been obvious to us. When the state implements a program such as the one being implemented in the State of Florida, the upper administration of the school districts is pushed into focusing on state standards and in turn, encourages their prospective schools to perform well on the high-stakes test. As a result, pressure is passed onto school principals and their staff to work harder for improvements on these high-stakes tests. This same pressure is passed onto students and their parents.

Now a new link has been added in the domino effect. Teacher education programs at colleges and universities are beginning to feel the pressures of the standards movement. The stress comes from two directions. First, teachers and principals are relying on their local colleges and universities to better prepare pre-service teachers for an environment of standards and high-stakes testing. This could result in changed course content and methodology at the college level. Second, recent trends in the field of education and accrediting organizations such as NCATE have also impacted teacher education programs. This could result in changes in assessments and evaluations of pre-service teachers' proficiencies.

The effects of standards and high-stakes testing in our area of Florida have been far reaching. This has been confirmed by our study where pre-service teachers, public school teachers, and public school administrators have given priority to objectives in our undergraduate curriculum course that relate to standards and high-stakes testing. Furthermore, the number one thing on the minds of the public school teachers and administrators that we surveyed was how to best prepare future teachers to match instruction to standards.

References

Blum, R. E. and Arter, J. A. (Eds.) (1996). Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, Virginia.

Campbell, D. (2000). Portfolio and performance assessment in teacher education. Allyn & Bacon.

Diez, M. (Ed.) (1998). Changing the practice of teacher education: Standards and assessment as a lever for change. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Marzano, R. J. and Kendall, J. S. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing standards-based districts, schools, and classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, Virginia.

Moss, P. A. (1999). Risking frankness in educational assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 680-687.

McConney, A. and Ayres, R. (1998). Assessing student teachers' assessments. Journal of Teacher Education. 49(2), 140-150.

NCATE (1999). Available Online at (http://www.ncate.org/pilots.htm>

Lynette Fields, University of South Florida, FL Ann Lee, University of South Florida, FL

Dr. Fields is an assistant professor in the Leadership Development Department at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg Campus. Ms. Ann Lee is a doctoral student and adjunct professor in the Leadership Development Department.