State standardized testing programs: friend or foe of gifted education
by Tonya R. Moon , Catherine M. Brighton , Carolyn M. Callahan Until the late 1970s, standardized testing had little effect, if any, on instruction. Instead, Goslin (1967) found that teachers seldom used the results of standardized tests, and he reported virtually no influence of test content on teaching methods or classroom content. Over the past decade, however, the importance placed on standardized tests has increased significantly (College Board, 1999). Forty-nine states have appropriated funding to establish assessment instruments as a means of interpreting educational effectiveness (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2000). Numerous reports suggest that the increased emphasis placed on these test scores results in an increased classroom emphasis on strategies such as basic skills instruction and drill and recitation to assure student success (e.g., Brown, 1992; Herman & Golan, 1990; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000; Shepard & Dougherty, 1991; Wright, 2002). Although there has been some study of the extent to which state-testing mandates affect the instructional practices of teachers who are under pressure to raise student scores, no studies have investigated teacher and student perceptions of the effects of these practices on various subgroups such as gifted students, students from economically disadvantaged environments, students with limited English proficiencies, and students with learning disabilities. Further, the change in teachers' instructional focus toward classroom emphasis on basic skill level instruction may in turn contribute to the underrepresentation of minority groups in gifted programs. That is, minority students, or other traditionally under-served populations of students, may respond negatively to the instructional delivery of teachers geared toward preparation of students for state tests, many of which are used for gifted program identification (Callahan, Tomlinson, Hunsaker, Bland, & Moon, 1995). Another concern is that all students, including students from underrepresented groups, may not have opportunities in the classroom to demonstrate the behaviors required to receive high ratings on teacher-administered instruments (such as rating scales, checklists), frequently the basis for nomination for gifted programs, because of the classroom emphasis on facts and skills. The direct consequence of these experiences may be a lower representation of these types of students in gifted and talented programs. Finally, with the current emphasis on standardized tests at the state level, the instructional practices of the classroom teacher may not be aligned with best practices as recommended by the National Research Council (1999) and Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (1998) and, consequently, may be turning certain groups of students off from learning. According to Ferguson (1998), teachers' "behaviors interact with students' beliefs, behaviors, and work habits in ways" that help to perpetuate the achievement gap (p. 274). To examine this potential impact, we investigated the effects of state testing programs on the instructional practices of elementary teachers, followed by an in-depth investigation of the effects of such practices on gifted students' attitudes toward school and their motivation to learn. Review of the Literature Although several studies (e.g., Herman & Golan, 1990; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000; Shepard & Dougherty, 1991; Wright, 2002) have investigated the effects of standardized tests on the teaching and learning processes, there are no reported studies of the implications for teachers who teach gifted and talented students, nor of the impact on the students themselves. Of those studies that have investigated testing effects, several have direct implications for the education of gifted and talented students. Herman and Golan (1990, 1993) sought to determine whether accountability pressures drive schools to narrow their curriculum at the cost of broader student learning. In addition, the researchers were interested in determining whether testing had a different effect on instruction in districts serving predominantly economically disadvantaged students and those districts serving predominantly advantaged students. Survey methodology was used with upper elementary school teachers in matched pairs from 11 medium-to-large school districts in nine states. The authors concluded that testing substantially influenced teachers' instructional planning. Specifically, teachers reported devising instructional plans that included all or most of the test content and test objectives. In addition, teachers reported adjustment of the curriculum sequence based on what was included on the tests. The authors also reported that teachers in low socioeconomic status (SES) schools were more influenced by testing than teachers in high SES schools. Shepard and Dougherty (1991) built their study based on the findings of Herman and Golan (1990). Again, using a teacher questionnaire focusing on perceptions of the influences testing had on teaching, they surveyed third through sixth grade teachers in two high-stakes districts. The authors reported that 75% of the teachers would give greater emphasis to basic skills instruction, vocabulary lists, word recognition skills, and paper-and-pencil computation than they would if there were no mandated tests. Further, content that was not a focus of the tests received the lowest priority. Fifty percent of the teachers reported giving less emphasis to subjects that were not tested (e.g., science or social studies). In 1992, Brown examined the meanings that teachers assigned to state-mandated tests and the actions that they initiated following their interpretation of the test results. Using a qualitative research design with 30 fifth and sixth grade teachers and 12 principals, the author reported that teachers altered the scope and sequence of curricula and eliminated concepts that were not covered on the state tests, a practice known as "narrowing the curriculum." Teachers also reported reluctance to use innovative instructional strategies and mentioned the use of more traditional instructional methods, citing a belief that such strategies would better prepare students for state tests. Using multiyear data collected and triangulated from a variety of sources (e.g., schools; classrooms; interactions with students, teachers, and administrators) in elementary, middle, and high schools in Texas, McNeil and Valenzuela (2000) report "test prep activities usurping a substantive curriculum" (p. 2). Wright (2002) analyzed the effects of the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition, (SAT-9) on teachers, students, and the curriculum in an inner-city elementary school in southern California. Drawing on interviews, observations, and documents, Wright found that major changes had been put in place to teach the test. Changes included "revising district standards and assessments to more closely match the content and the format of the SAT-9; adoption of Math Steps, Open Court, Test Best for Test Prep, and a basal spelling program" (p. 28). Wright also reported "mandatory time allotments for phonics, math, and direct SAT-9 test preparation," indicating that because the "SAT-9 tests only language arts and math, there is no room for science, social studies, PE, music and art" (p.28). Several conclusions from these studies seem apparent. Because of the nature of high-stakes state testing programs, schools may emphasize skill development to the detriment of curricula or programs that emphasize greater depth and integration of concepts, integration across disciplines, and/or development of higher order thinking skills. Adaptation of mandated scope and sequence of concepts and/or pacing guides to meet student needs may be diminishing in favor of test-directed one-size-fits-all instruction. Teachers' lack of freedom to experiment with curricula may also affect their willingness or ability to explore innovative instructional strategies for use in developing this nation's talent pool. Very little research has been reported in the literature documenting students' perceptions of current educational reform efforts. One study (Appalachia Educational Lab [AEL], 1994) concerning students' perceptions of educational reform assessed student perceptions of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). Through individual and focus group interviews, students appeared knowledgeable and articulate about the aspects of the reform movement that had direct implications for them. Although most of the students felt that KERA might help them be more competitive when vying with students from other states for college admission and employment, students reported increased stress on teachers and on themselves (AEL, 1994). However, the report did not present any findings concerning students' perceptions of their classrooms, on the ways that instruction had affected students' motivation, or on ways that instruction might be delivered to increase student engagement in complex learning. In the Wright study (2002), teachers and students reported students often breaking down and crying because of test-related anxiety. Some students also reported developing apathy in their testing behaviors "because they deem it pointless to read a question before bubbling in a wrong answer" (p. 29). Several recent studies have investigated gifted students' perceptions of their schools and classrooms since the initiation of widespread educational reforms. Clementson and Wenger (1998) reported gifted students' perspectives of their high schools. Although the students reported overall satisfaction with what occurred in their schools, many students called for more challenging curricula and stimulating instruction. The following comments are testaments to student perceptions of the lack of engaging and complex curricula: | |
Too many students coast through high school without being challenged.
Mediocrity is becoming the norm.
The difficulty of most of the classes is far below the level of the
majority of the students. Raising the difficulty of these classes
would challenge a student's intellect.
I would urge my teachers to make learning more exciting. (p. 208)
| | Gallagher, Harradine, and Coleman (1996) surveyed K-12 gifted students on their views of schooling. Results indicated that students were bored and in need of more complex and diverse instructional materials. Although there were some isolated reports of individual challenging experiences, the majority of students reported that instruction was paced too slowly and based on repeated presentation of previously mastered material. Without creative, innovative teaching reflective of recommended best practices, segments of our student population may not be engaged, and therefore, will see no need to invest in the learning effort needed to reach their potential. This study sought to investigate a number of issues raised separately by previous studies on state-testing effects. It pays particular attention to the effects of state-testing mandates on teaching gifted students, including those practices that are appropriate for the identified gifted student as well as students whose talents may not yet be recognized. Secondly, the study sought to investigate the effects state tests have on gifted students themselves in terms of their attitudes and motivation to learn. Specific research questions included: (1) What are the effects of state testing on schools and teachers relative to (a) curriculum and instructional practices, (b) pressure to improve test scores, and (c) test preparation?, and (2) What are the effects of state testing on students labeled as gifted and talented? Specifically, what are the effects on gifted students' (a) attitudes toward school, (b) their motivation to learn and (c) their perceptions of the classroom environment? Research Project Design The study was conducted in two phases. The theoretical, conceptual framework that was used for both phases of the study was that of an interpretist theory (Erickson, 1986). That is, to understand the actions of others, one must consider insider perspectives (Eisenhart & Howe, 1990). Erickson stated, "The task of interpretive research is to discover the specific ways in which local and non-local forms of social organization and culture relate to the activities of specific persons in making choices ..." (p. 129). As teachers are pressured to produce better test scores, they make specific choices to accomplish this goal, for the betterment or detriment of sound instructional practices for gifted and talented students (or for nurturing at-risk students with potential). In turn, Blumer's (1972) framework of symbolic interactionism guided the phase focusing on student perceptions of state testing. Blumer's theory is based on the premise that humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings that they have for the individual. These meanings are derived from social interaction and they help people interpret situations. The study examined the meanings students assigned to state-mandated tests and the resulting effects on their attitudes and motivations to learn. Phase One Survey methodology was used to compare the instructional practices of elementary teachers who were responsible for teaching gifted students and who were not. There was a particular focus on. practices deemed appropriate for the delivery of rich and challenging curricula. These curricula are similar to what would be expected in a gifted and talented program or would promote the level of understanding and processing of information that can lead to identification as gifted (e.g., problem solving, enrichment, acceleration, compacting). Sampling framework. Market Data Retrieval (1) provided teacher level information for all public schools in the US. Based on the information provided, 928,170 elementary teachers (defined as grades K-8) were employed in schools across the nation at the time of sampling. It is important to note that approximately 15,000 elementary schools house grades K-8; however, the upper grade teachers were only in the elementary teacher database and not in both the elementary and middle school teacher databases. In other words, each database was mutually exclusive. Because of the large numbers of teachers, a 1% stratified random sample based on metropolitan status and poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990) was drawn (n=8,044; return rate 16% [1,289 surveys] (2)). Teachers were asked to estimate the class's general academic achievement/ability level (below-grade level, on-grade level, of above-grade level). Teacher demographics based on their responses are presented in Table 1. Data analysis. Data were coded by state, metropolitan status, and the school's poverty level. Data were then aggregated based on the above mentioned variables for analysis; that is, the responses of individual teachers were averaged with those of other teachers across common-grade levels and metropolitan and poverty status indicators, as well as within each state. To simplify the reporting of questionnaire results, similar items were grouped together in categories: curriculum and instructional effects; pressure to improve test scores; test preparation; positive and negative effects of standardized testing; perceptions of the consequences of testing; and teacher background data, including geographic and poverty indicators. Factor analysis was used to verify the meaningfulness of the groupings, or sub-scales. Phase Two This phase of the study employed a qualitative research methodology to ascertain teachers' and students' perceptions of the influences that state testing mandates have on curricula, instructional process, and student attitudes toward school. Seeking diversity of culture groups, socioeconomic status, and metropolitan status, districts in California, Texas, and Virginia were selected for participation in Phase Two of this study. The Appendix contains each state's definition of giftedness. All schools are referred to by pseudonyms. The elementary schools located in California (Eisenhower Elementary, Fletcher Elementary) were located in an urban setting. Nearly all of the students in the district were members of diverse racial and cultural groups. Eisenhower Elementary housed a Korean language immersion program with academic subjects taught in Korean. In both of these elementary schools, students identified as gifted were served in the regular classroom by the general education instructor who may of may not have had training in gifted education or the needs of gifted students. The elementary schools located in Texas (Alexander Elementary, Barton Elementary, and Carson Elementary) were semirural to suburban. The district was in close proximity to the Mexican border and therefore had a large number of immigrants with limited English proficiency. Some elementary schools in the district, including Carson Elementary, were affluent and served a relatively high percentage (35%) of identified gifted and talented students. The elementary school in Virginia (Davis Elementary) was located in a rural setting and served a large number of students from a diverse section of the county. Students identified as gifted in this school were cluster-grouped into one teacher's classroom (per grade level) and served by a gifted-endorsed general educator. In some cases they received additional time with a gifted resource teacher. Sampling framework. Using a stratified purposeful sampling design, a series of focus groups were conducted to illustrate characteristics of particular subgroups of interest to the study, such as teachers of gifted students, teachers of mixed-ability classrooms, gifted and talented students, economically disadvantaged students, and limited English proficient students. Focus group interviews are appropriate when insights are needed, when there is a communication or understanding gap between groups or categories of people, of when one is interested in uncovering factors relating to complex behavior or motivation (Krueger, 1994). Each focus group (n=21) for both teachers and students ranged in size from 3 to 5 participants. Individual interviews were conducted with some teachers and students because of schedule conflicts. Although it is inappropriate in qualitative studies to make generalizations beyond the specific context studied, the stratified design allowed the development of assertions about the effects of state-mandated testing on teachers and students, which could be triangulated with the more generalizable quantitative findings. Semistructured interview protocols were used to guide the focus groups for teachers and students. An instrument containing the same questions and probes was used for all teacher focus groups as well as for student focus groups, but the order in which they were asked changed according to how individuals responded (Goetz & LeCompte, 1981). Observations of each participating teacher's classroom were conducted at various intervals of the school year using a semistructured observation protocol. These observations served as a point of reference for researchers and teachers during focus group interviews. Further observation data were triangulated with teacher and student interview data for a more complete picture of the effects of state testing on classroom practices. Data analysis. The principles of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were adhered to throughout the analysis phase. Transcript-based analysis, the most rigorous analysis strategy, was used to analyze focus group interviews. That is, focus group discussions were tape-recorded and then transcribed by a professional transcriptionist. Classroom observations were script-taped by researchers to attempt to record as many teacher and student actions and interactions as possible. Script-tapes are verbatim transcriptions of classroom events including teachers' directions and behaviors, students' responses, and other interactions among the individuals involved in the classroom. Additionally, researchers included descriptive information about the classroom context, climate, and procedures that might not be evident from script-tapes. Researchers' comments and insights into classroom activities and interactions were also included in the field notes. The transcriptions, observations, and researchers' field notes were analyzed inductively to develop coding categories (by question and then overall) from responding teachers and students. Data were then coded and sorted into the categories and typologies and diagrams were developed that reflected key findings (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Categories were collapsed and reconfigured within each setting and across districts to determine patterns across data (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Double coding of each transcription, observation, and field report (two researchers coding the same data) occurred to aid in definitional clarity as well as to serve as a reliability check (Miles & Huberman, 1984). References following direct quotations include the school's pseudonym, source of data, number of document in chronological sequence, and the page number of the document where the citation can be located. Results This section presents quantitative and qualitative findings regarding the influences that state testing initiatives have on elementary classroom practices. The descriptive quantitative results are based on teachers' perceptions of the general academic ability level of their classes. Teachers were asked to estimate the class's general academic achievement/ability level (below-grade level, on-grade level, or above-grade level). There were no statistical differences among teachers' responses to the survey questions, regardless of the classroom ability/achievement level (below-grade level, on-grade level, above-grade level). This is a particularly important finding in that teachers reported similar instructional practices regardless of students' academic abilities. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Emphasize Test Preparation Regardless of the class ability level, teachers reported spending substantial time in preparation for state-mandated tests leading up to the administration of various state tests and a consistently sharp decrease in use of preparation activities after the tests (see Table 2). Specifically, teachers reported an increased use of worksheets (see Figure 1), test-taking strategies (see Figure 2), review and practice of state-released test items (see Figure 3), and student practice opportunities on the types of item formats found on the state tests in the period leading up to the tests, with a significant decrease in use after the tests (see Figure 4). [FIGURE 1-4 OMITTED] In interviews, teachers and students describe classrooms that focus the majority of time and resources on test preparation at the expense of other strategies and approaches. "I do spend most of my time, I'm saying ninety-five to ninety-eight percent of my time is spent preparing for the test" (Alexander Elementary teacher, #1, p. 9). Teachers seem to believe that the best method for preparing students for the state test is to simulate the testing experience in classroom instruction. Consequently, classroom lessons focus on isolated skills and tend to emphasize facts and rules. | |
The teachers are reinforced to be like simulators.... Before [a
pilot] goes out and gets his pilot's license, he's put in a
simulator. And he's got trees in front of him and a runway in front
of him, and everything else. Same thing with submarines.... That's
what teachers are having to do. They're having to make up tests and
to use the strategies that are the way that are tested, instead of
teaching all of the other stuff around it. Not the big picture, just
this limited view. This particular skill. (Alexander Elementary
teacher, #1, p. 13)
| | Teachers were asked to indicate how state test results affected their instruction (see Table 3). The majority of teachers, across all class ability levels, reported that they teach to the tests more than they would if there were no accountability pressures and that they omit information because of lack of time due to preparing for state tests. Thirty-seven percent of teachers teaching in below-grade level classes; 28% of teachers teaching in on-grade level classrooms; and 26% of teachers teaching in above-grade level classrooms indicated not doing certain things that looked interesting of beneficial for students because of preparation for state tests. Classrooms filled with repetition, practice worksheets, and skill drills are not reflective of the recommended practices for gifted learners, or perhaps any other type of learner. Regardless, these findings describe common practices in place in elementary schools in the states studied. Teachers seem to recognize the ill fit of these approaches for their brightest learners yet feel powerless to change directions. "They cannot. The teacher unfortunately cannot take in the gifted child's needs when she's trying to pull everybody else up who doesn't have the skills. The gifted child loses that year" (Barton Elementary teacher, #1, p. 9). Classroom experiences seem to focus on the needs of the class as a whole, and less emphasis is placed on the specific needs of individual students. Because of the pressure to achieve at a specific level, teachers tend to gear the pace of instruction or the level of assignments toward the lower end of student academic levels. | |
It's true. I feel we're constantly focusing, you know, because we are
trying to recover ... we're the foundation, and this is where we are
trying to catch up. And what we focus on in early childhood is the
non-readers, kids working below-grade level, at-risk kids, that are
at risk of failure. And just once a year do I ever hear about G/T
(gifted and talented) nominations, but throughout the whole year,
it's constant tracking and assessing and collaborating with your
teams to focus on the ones that are not working at grade level.
Just once a year at the end of the year is when you hear about G/T
nominations, and everything is just compiled at the last minute....
our whole emphasis is on our low achieving students. So I definitely
agree that this is a problem. (Alexander Elementary teacher, #1,
p. 18)
| | Another teacher in the same focus group responded to the teacher's lament about the lack of attention to gifted learners' needs. | |
We are so focused on the recovery and the low achieving that we try
to pick them up. This year it was an eye-opener for me, too. We were
doing UIL (University Interscholastic League), we were in a UIL
contest this year and that's where I ... I had to shift focus and
try to find the students that were doing exceptionally well to send
them to the UIL contest. Number sense, math, spelling, story telling,
oral reading, poetry, and it was amazing when I had to shift gears.
It was like, wow. And then trying to select only a few. We have so
many. So many who are way, way up there. Way! (Barton Elementary
teacher, #1, p. 18)
| | The process of looking for strong students seemed to be the impetus for the teacher to recognize how many bright and talented students were being overlooked in the classroom activities geared toward the most struggling learners. Teachers who taught only gifted students placed slightly less emphasis on test preparation than those teachers who taught heterogeneous classes of students, a pattern that was echoed in the quantitative findings. | |
A regular child could take up to fifteen times to teach the same
concept that you would teach a G/T student who could catch up to you
and understand it the fifth time. So yes, we can go faster and we are
able to do more with these [gifted and talented] children. (Barton
Elementary, #1, p. 5)
| | Yet, despite the more talented students in the classroom, teachers of gifted students ate in many situations still bound by the same parameters as the teachers of mixed-ability students. | |
The G/T teacher has to follow the timeline also. And a G/T student
can take the test on day one and probably pass the test. But the
teacher is still expected to follow the timeline. The gifted student
doesn't have to do all of the drilling, working on the objectives
day after day, but they have to follow the timeline, follow the same
curriculum as the other kids. So they're losing out, because I don't
think they're being challenged. (Carson Elementary teacher, #10, p.
7)
| | In the face of classroom learning experiences focused on drilling objectives and repeatedly practicing skills, teachers express concern that bright students will not be able to demonstrate talents or cultivate potential talent in school. Teachers fear that the curriculum, instruction, and assessment so focused on preparation for state testing will yield detrimental effects for identification of gifted students. "It's kind of hard to see those characteristics of gifted kids when everything is [state test] formatted as far as the lack of creativity and higher-level thinking" (Carson Elementary teacher, #13, p. 14). On the survey, teachers were asked how often they were able to give attention to particular areas during classroom instruction. Again, regardless of class achievement ability level the patterns of responses were similar for each of the areas. Although teachers reported giving attention to higher order thinking skills and problem-solving skills they also reported with similar frequency attention to factual knowledge and basic skills (see Table 4). Teachers report giving little attention to topics not on state tests, the areas of fine and performing arts, and enrichment areas. In interviews, teachers describe reduced use of instructional strategies or approaches that are student-centered, time-intensive, or creative in nature. For example, a teacher explained that she was trained in and previously used Junior Great Books methods to facilitate literature discussions but now felt pressure to use reading passages and comprehension questions that resembled those seen on state tests. "I think that we kind of avoided it [Junior Great Books] well, at least in my class because there's really not time for that" (Barton Elementary teacher, #1, p. 22). Content delivered to students also seems to be directly affected by the state testing pressure. Subjects not included in the state tests often were accorded low priority for most of the school year to create larger blocks of instruction for tested subjects and skills. Acknowledging this emphasis, some teachers articulated concern for the long-term detrimental effects for the students, particularly for the most capable learners. | |
It really doesn't make a lot of sense because if you were to compare
the US to the rest of the nations, we are so weak in math and
science.... Math and science go hand in hand. However, science is
ignored and it's not until they become juniors and seniors in high
school that the emphasis is put on science. Well, it's too late
because it was lost in the first grade when science wasn't started
then.... They always focus on math, but they don't do the higher
level thinking where you tie math into science. And once our kids
get to high school and college, they're so far behind, there's no way
they're going to catch up. (Carson Elementary teacher, #10, p. 6)
| | On the survey, teachers were asked to report the frequency of use of particular assessment formats. Again, the patterns across class ability levels were similar for each format. While constructed response items, long term projects, performance items, and multiple-choice items were reportedly used on average "sometimes," test preparation was reported to be the most often used strategy (see Table 5). In addition to matching curricula and instruction to test content, teachers articulate the importance of matching classroom assessment to the format of the state tests. Teachers feel that they do not have the luxury of giving authentic or performance assessments to students because of time constraints. Teachers believe that the most direct route to success on the state tests is through class experiences that provide drill in the target objectives using materials and resources that resemble the tests. Not surprisingly, teachers also believe that the best way to assess students is through the same format contained on the state tests. | |
We have to format our assessments to match the [state test] so when
the kids do actually take the [state test] they're not shocked by
the test format. Whereas we might prefer essay questions or
fill-in-the-blank kinds of things, the [state test] is just multiple
choice, bubble it in. So our tests are like that, so they're
formatted alike. (Carson Elementary teacher, #10, p. 7)
| | Other methods of classroom assessment are virtually abandoned with the possibility in some instances of inclusion after the tests are completed. A teacher says that she assigns projects: | |
... not very often.... You constantly have to drill and work with the
objectives. Constantly. And if we had that luxury of giving projects
it would be very nice. We have these thematic units and these
projects, it would be very nice to [use them in class] but we can't.
We can't really do that while we have to work and work on the
objectives. (Carson Elementary teacher, #10, p. 5)
| | Gifted Students' Responses to the Emphasis on State Tests Gifted students identify numerous concerns and complaints about their school experiences in regard to the heightened emphasis on state tests. Most consistent among their responses was a sense of boredom and disengagement in classes that frequently practice state testing formats and writing prompts. When asked if the students really get into what they study in school, a student said that, "If I liked what I was studying I would study very hard, but we are just doing the same thing over and over. It is so boring" (Carson Elementary student, #1, p. 2). When asked if they were studying anything that had any connection with their lives outside of school, they said that they were just studying and learning for the state test. They seem to express less excitement about school because they are studying things that they studied before. While younger students (grades 1-3) are less frequently tested, they also maintain the most positive attitude about the testing experience. "I think it is a great test" (Barton Elementary student, #4, p. 1). Other elementary students are more critical about the impact that the state testing emphasis has on their learning experience. "It's just stuff we already know. It's just a long review of what we've done all year. We've reviewed it a lot already before the [state test], it is kind of a waste of time" (Barton Elementary student, #5, p. 1). Other students resent the disruption from the learning they enjoy to practice test-taking strategies or to write to specific writing prompts. "It doesn't help us allow teachers to see what is wrong with us in our subjects. It doesn't help us at all. It hurts real learning" (Carson Elementary student, #2, p. 1). When asked to explain what he meant by his comment, the student gave a specific example of how he believes test preparation intrudes on his learning. "With Shakespeare or The Odyssey, which we`re reading now, our study is interrupted to do [state test] exercises. It has nothing to do with The Odyssey. It's confusing. It gets in the way of the time we have to be in class" (Carson Elementary student, #2, p. 1). Some students we interviewed were less verbal about their feelings about the changes in their classroom learning experiences. Some students seemed to internalize the pressure to perform on the state tests. Facing this pressure, some students responded with physical illness, nail biting, and other anxiety-induced behaviors. A teacher (who is also a parent) describes a scenario with her son and test anxiety. | |
A drawback that I see is that it's an overwhelming pressure on young
people. I've had my son up at four o'clock in the morning the day
before the [state test] and I see his silhouette on the wall, and I
wake up and he says, "Mom what if I do badly?" It's a lot of pressure
on a kid. We had to go into the school and talk to the counselor. He
gets academic recognition, you know, in his subjects for the most
part every year, but it's just this anxiety. He never bit his nails
before and now they're up to the quick. (Carson Elementary teacher,
#13, p. 3)
| | Gifted children frequently experience the disabling effects of perfectionism, but when overt pressure is communicated in words and behaviors from their teachers in school, pressure to exceed expectations seems a common response. | |
I think it's just because I see how stressful, how stressed the kids
become. Like our G/T kids, I know from my classroom they wanted to
get the 100, they wanted to get that perfect test. They wanted that
perfect test.... I see them and they get sick and feel bad, have a
headache and they want to go to the rest-room and they just ...
it's horrible to watch. (Barton Elementary teacher, #2, p. 10)
| | Teachers often communicate pressure in a variety of ways, in many cases unintentionally. For example, in one school there is a widely held belief that it takes several gifted students' scores to pull up the score of one failing student. | |
In math I feel the pressure of the [state test] from day one.
Especially since I'm told that I have the G/T students, that they
should pass the [state test]. What if they're sick that day? What if
they just don't like to take tests? Most of the time they pass, but
you're told, "Okay, you have the top students, so your students need
to make a 90% of above to help the others students come up so that
they we can balance off. It's said to me down the hall, not written
in a memo. Well, it's not written down, it's not handed down from the
administration saying you have G/T students, you need to have a 95 or
above that are passing. But you're told. (Carson Elementary teacher,
#12, p. 3)
| | Teachers are not alone in their belief about the importance of gifted students scores. The bright students themselves are quite aware of how their achievement affects the entire school. "We are the ones that bring it up. They ride on us even more because if we don't do the recommended scores or better, they get a bad reputation that they are bad teachers or they are not teaching us" (Carson Elementary student, #2, p. 1). This perception has serious consequences for gifted learners. Across settings, teachers readily acknowledge that gifted students are not adequately challenged, already know much of the material covered in class, and need enrichment opportunities. However, teachers hesitate to provide these things for fear of wasting time. Despite these realizations, teachers still feel pressure to emphasize test preparation to assure that the gifted students do what they can do to "pull up" the rest of the student population. Although some students respond to the feelings of pressure with anxiety, other students respond by sabotaging the test. Teachers in one school described their six-step process for problem solving used in math classes. Some students, specifically the gifted students refused to use the process because they believed that they knew how to do the tasks and problems without following the repetitive six steps that include asking students to circle the operation, underline the numbers, and put a square around the facts in the sentence. Regardless of students' facility with problem solving, teachers required students to follow the mandated prescribed steps, often creating a battle between the teacher and the students that results in test sabotage. | |
I tell them in my class that it [six step problem-solving method] is
required. You are not going to turn it in ... I'm not picking up that
little test paper until I see some work. Show me some work. (Barton
Elementary teacher, #1, p. 21)
| | Students respond negatively to this pressure to comply and describe with anger their frustration about the prescribed steps. "I don't like it when you already know the answer but you still have to do it [show the six steps] instead of solving it my way" (Barton Elementary student, #5, p.1). Teachers acknowledge students' frustration but fail to respond to it. | |
The G/T, kids are frustrated for a different reason [than the
struggling learners] because they already know it and they have to do
it over and over.... There is some discussion of the strategies
taught to students from the testing and that they are particularly
disliked by the gifted students. For some kids, they refuse to use
the strategy and then point out to their teachers how well they did
on the test in spite of not using the strategy. (Barton Elementary
teacher, #4, p. 2)
| | Bright students, frustrated by the teachers' unwillingness to negotiate a compromise in regard to the test preparation strategies, sabotage the tests. Sometimes they succeed in spite of the teachers' requirements, but in other instances they are likely to yield lower scores than their potential suggests. In these cases, the most talented students are being hindered by teachers' perceptions of the best preparation methods for state tests. Administrative Focus on State Tests On the survey, teachers were asked the degree to which the leadership in their schools focused discussions with them on student test performance as well as on introducing or discussing new instructional ideas. Teachers reported these occurred a few times per year (see Table 6). The response patterns for each class ability level were similar for each of the activities presented. In general, the largest proportion of teachers reported that their administrations engaged in reviewing test scores, discussed ways to improve test scores, provided materials for test score improvement, and evaluated their instructional emphases for weak areas reflected in test scores only a few times per year. The largest proportion of teachers also indicated that new or important instructional ideas were also presented a few times a year. Across all class ability levels, the majority of teachers reported that as a consequence of poor student test performance, new pressure to change their teaching strategies would occur (see Table 7). A large percentage (approximately one third) of teachers reported reassignment of grade level or the type of students taught and a private reprimand as potential consequences of poor student test performance. Twenty-five percent of the teachers in below-grade level classes, 18% of teachers teaching in on-grade level classes, and 15 % of the teachers teaching in above-grade level classes reported loss of position as a potential consequence of poor student test performance. Roughly a quarter of the teachers reported that there were no consequences to teachers as a result of poor test performance by students. After Testing, Instruction Changes Emphasis Classroom observations conducted after the state tests are completed show the dramatic change in emphasis in classroom curricula, instruction, and assessment. Several teachers describe the inclusion of instructional strategies that emphasize creativity and enrichment. "I don't do projects at all until after the test" (Carson Elementary teacher, #4, p. 1). Other teachers feel permission to teach concepts and skills that they believe are important, but are not among the concepts or skills tested on the state tests. | |
After [state test], I'm able to do more activities where they can
understand concepts a lot easier than just, "okay, this is what you
have to know for the test" and that's it. You know, I'm able to do,
I'm able to expand on what it ... like when I did linear equations,
they understood it because we did an activity that took three days,
but it was an activity that helped them understand. If it had been
on the [state test] it would have had to have been, "Okay here's
how you do it. That's it. Learn it." (Carson Elementary teacher,
#12, p. 4)
| | Another startling pattern of teachers' responses regarding instructional changes includes a virtual surrender of instruction upon completion of the tests when the tests occur later in the spring. A group of teachers discuss this phenomenon seen at their school. | |
Teacher 1: Most teachers are teaching for the [state test] and once
it's over, they pretty much stop teaching. And the kids are also
noticing that. You know, I had a remark, "Miss, the test is over.
Why do we have to even do any work?"
Teacher 2: That's true, they don't want any grades. They don't want
to do anything any more because the tests are over.
Teacher 3: Let's play! The [state tests] are over! (Carson Elementary
teacher focus group, #12, p. 1)
| | The students seem confused by the mixed messages they receive in classes. Through their actions and words, teachers seem to communicate to the learners that the test is the purpose of schooling. Following that logic, students are puzzled when learning continues after the conclusion of the tests. In their minds, the conclusion of the tests seems to signal the end of the academic experience. Some instructional activities observed after the completion of state testing seem to lack an instructional purpose or objective and seem more focused on entertaining the students than educating them. The decision to spend the precious instructional time that teachers complain is so limited on activities that have questionable educational value presents an interesting paradox between the description of their beliefs and their actions. | |
After the tests, we always have, like, fun activities. You know, this
year we had [theme parties]. We did one on Greece and we had an
Italian--or a Roman--that we had you know, spaghetti that they
brought in. Then we had Egypt, and we mummified a chicken. That was
fun. And you know, they really enjoyed it. And you see the kids happy
and you see them smiling. (Carson Elementary teacher, #10, p. 4)
| | Upon completion of the state tests, some teachers feel that the students need fun activities that will keep them engaged and entertained. Although some teachers seem to interpret this as entertainment alone, other teachers use this small window of time to include all content, strategies, and field trips that were considered unimportant during the major portion of the academic year. In all classrooms observed in the weeks following the state tests, the climate and teacher and student attitudes were remarkably different. Summary and Implications This study had two major aims: a) to investigate the effects of state testing programs on the instructional practices of elementary teachers, and b) to investigate the effects of such practices on gifted students' attitudes toward school and their motivation to learn. We conducted a large-scale national survey to investigate teachers' practices, followed by a more in-depth look into elementary classrooms in three states, California, Texas, and Virginia, to triangulate the data and to hear the voices of students in regard to these prevalent patterns. The conceptual framework that guided this study was that of interpretivist theory (Erickson, 1986) and symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1972). We sought to understand the factors that influenced classroom decision making in regard to state-mandated testing and gifted students' interpretation of the testing experience. From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the meanings that teachers assign to the standards, the tests, and the consequences of the tests influence which path teachers select to complete them. The perceptions that teachers hold of the standards, the tests, and the students interact and define how they conceive of curricula and implement instruction and assessment. Teachers' Perceptions For the teachers we observed, how they interpreted the meaning and purpose of state-mandated testing influenced how they responded to them in their individual classrooms. The concept of "state testing" carries over into at least three specific areas including the standards, the actual testing instrument (including the consequences they assigned to the test), and the students as recipients of the testing experience. Numerous beliefs about the testing process and these areas emerged from teachers' survey responses, interviews, and actions. Standards Teachers assign meaning to the standards, which affects how they use the standards to guide their instructional program. Some educators view the standards as finite and unbending, and these teachers seem to be the least creative in how they seek to address them in classroom instruction. | |
We have to teach the objectives that the curriculum director tells us
to teach per semester, for example in English she told me teach
objective 5. We have to go in the order that she tells us to go to,
the objectives that we are going to concentrate to master the [state
test]. So we can't choose whatever we want. It has to be based on
the [state test]. (Carson Elementary teacher, #8, p. 3)
| | A prevalent pattern across classrooms and teachers is the belief that the standards, as operationalized by the state assessment, are the gospel, and most teachers feel unable to deviate from them. In many cases, this belief is validated by school and/or district policies, strictly monitored pacing guides, and/or administrative mandates. | |
The administrators make it very clear that you need to go in that
direction and the curriculum assistant makes it very clear that it
goes in that direction and therefore we can't be creative as teachers
because we have to make sure that our objectives have been met. We
feel guilty if we go off on something that may be enjoyable for their
learning because we have to be so focused on the objectives. (Carson
Elementary teacher, #8, p. 3)
| | In some instances, teachers perceive the standards as checklists and fail to conceptually organize content to create logical frameworks for the students. In other cases, teachers view the standards as lockstep. Teachers in this study expressed a variety of emotions regarding the schools' emphasis on state tests ranging from anger to resigned acceptance. Although teachers' beliefs may be contradictory, based on the data collected in this study, teachers' actions seem to suggest that the most direct and efficient method to communicate the standards to students is direct instruction in a whole-group classroom format. While teachers are able to clearly describe a variety of instructional approaches, teachers in elementary classrooms frequently deliver large amounts of information to students by lecture, and students practice skills by using worksheets and classroom drills. Other instructional strategies such as the use of literature discussion groups, (e.g., Junior Great Books), hands-on science experiences, and art-infused projects, among many others, are recognized by teachers as luxuries and not essential to their mission. Tests The perception that what is being assessed is what is most important leads teachers to surrender their professional judgment about what is important, how content is taught, and how mastery of the content is assessed. A direct consequence of relinquishing decision-making power is that subject areas not tested are given little classroom emphasis. Some concepts are not taught at all; others are skimmed or briefly summarized. The test provides the template for the delivery of instruction and assessment. Teachers perceive that the only way that they can adequately cover the necessary skills and knowledge is to mimic the testing format in repetitive, patterned activities and practice tests. Teachers believe that to deviate from this preparation agenda will not adequately prepare students for the tests. Therefore, neither teachers nor students have the time to indulge in classroom "luxuries" that emphasize creativity, open-ended responses, and real-life application of knowledge and skills. Interestingly, this is all in light of teachers' indications that there are few direct consequences to poor student test performance. In spite of the limited actual consequences, the perception of poor test performance appears to motivate teachers to disregard best practices and engage in ineffective and inappropriate classroom practices for students. Students Regardless of whether teachers recognize or articulate differences among various learners in their classrooms, they fail to respond to this diversity in their classroom practices. The result is one-size-fits-all instruction that not only mimics the state test format but also is limited to the content specifications of the test. Further, the pace of delivery and level of instruction are geared toward the least capable learners in the classroom, leaving gifted students bored and often disengaged from learning. Even with the knowledge that some students have already mastered specific standards, teachers continue to insist on regimented learning experiences that impose a "ceiling effect" for student learning. Teachers' perceptions of the standards, tests, and students shape their classroom actions. As such, there are serious implications for teachers' professional development. For example, many of the school districts we observed mandate some degree of differentiation of instruction as a vehicle to address academic diversity in mixed-ability classrooms. The aforementioned teachers' perceptions lessen their willingness and ability to construct instructional activities for diverse learners' needs. Other professional development initiatives may meet with similar resistance due to the conflict between their perceptions of the test and the underlying assumptions of the initiatives. Gifted Students' Perceptions and Reactions Gifted students' perceptions of school are shaped by classroom experiences that are heavily focused on test-preparation, skill practice, and repetition. These bright learners express frustration and resentment about their lack of opportunities to continue to learn new things or revisit familiar concepts in greater depth. Gifted students perceive additional pressure (on top of their own need to succeed) to carry the burden of their lower-performing peers. This pressure is manifested in a variety of behaviors from overt anxiety to test sabotage. The implications for these bright learners are significant. The most obvious consequence of this scenario is the possibility of the underdevelopment of bright learners' potential. In classrooms that focus on low-level tasks with low expectations for student performance, students miss opportunities to develop the skills and attitudes necessary for success in rigorous academic and arts programs. The development of talent in minority students, students from lower SES conditions, and students lacking in rich cultural experiences is often dependent upon the provisions offered by schools. If schools no longer prioritize talent development, it is likely that these students will continue to be underrepresented in gifted programs and advanced level classes. Future Research Although this study only conducted an in-depth investigation of the effects of state-testing programs in elementary schools in three states, all of which had similar types of programs, the findings from both the national level data and the qualitative data indicate strong and persistent trends regarding teachers' and students' reactions to the accountability mandates. Research to determine if the same teacher and student reactions occur regardless of the type of state testing program (e.g., performance-based items rather than multiple-choice items) as well as other school levels (middle and high school) should be conducted. Recommendations for practitioners In light of these patterns across states, teachers, and class-rooms, some specific recommendations are offered to educators seeking to simultaneously meet state testing goals and challenge all learners, including the gifted. 1. Use varied and purposeful instructional approaches. Incorporate a variety of instructional approaches that have potential to simultaneously reinforce basic skills and raise the ceiling for bright learners. For example, the use of a concept-based approach to curricular organization facilitates a teacher's ability to meet diverse learners' needs. The abstract concept serves as an organizer, under which basic skills are taught, reinforced, and extended as needed for maximum student learning. 2. Organize standards in an efficient manner. Using horizontal and vertical alignment strategies, teachers and administrators can make better sense of the state standards and align human and material resources to those areas of greatest need. An additional recommendation for building-level administrators is to create organizational structures that are supportive of flexible grouping within and across grade levels. Incorporating a fluid and flexible grouping design increases the opportunities for appropriate challenge levels and best-fit learning environments for diverse learners. 3. Align professional development opportunities with documented needs of teachers in the school/district. Professional learning is most powerful when it is seen as useful and directly applicable to teachers' daily classroom needs. Professional development opportunities that are specifically geared toward grade level standards and/or specific content goals spiraled across grade levels will help teachers recognize and implement best practices while still meeting mandated state requirements. 4. Educate leaders and community stakeholders about the needs of gifted learners. Provide professional development for policy makers, district leaders, administrators, and general educators about the characteristics and attributes of gifted learners and the types of recommended practices for developing talent in these students. Through education and awareness, these stakeholders can become advocates for talent development of all students and may become valuable resources as the standards and accountability movement continues to evolve. APPENDIX State Definition of Gifted and Talented Students Information regarding the definition of gifted and talented students was obtained from each state's (California, Texas, Virginia) education cede on each state's department of education website. California According to the education cede of California pertaining to gifted and talented students, local criteria for the areas of intellectually gifted, specific academic ability, leadership, visual and performing arts, and creativity are developed for entrance into gifted and talented education (GATE) programs. Texas Texas education cede defines gifted and talented students as those students who perform or show potential for remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment, and who: (a) exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas; (b) possess an unusual capacity for leadership; or (c) excel in a specific academic field. Virginia Virginia education cede defines a gifted and talented student as one who has high performance capabilities (including leadership) in one or more of the following areas: general intellectual aptitude, specific intellectual aptitude, technical and practical art, or visual or performing arts. | |
Table 1
Demographic of Responding Teachers
Below At Above
Grade Grade Grade Total
Grade Level Taught *
Kindergarten 18 61 47 126
First grade 44 93 68 205
Second grade 47 90 62 199
Third grade 69 122 74 265
Fourth grade 81 120 58 259
Fifth grade 69 95 71 235
Total 328 581 380 1,289
Average Number of 16.1 16.6 17.3 16.7
Years Taught (Std Dev) (9.8) (9.3) (9.8) (9.6)
* numbers represent n.
Table 2
Use of Particular Test Preparation Activities (n=1,289)
Below Grade At Grade Above Grade
Item Level (n=328) Level (n=581) Level (n=380)
How much time do you spend in your classroom on the following test
preparation activities during the first 1/3 of the year?
Worksheets for test
preparation 3.5 (1.85) 3.5 (1.90) 3.3 (1.96)
Instfuction for
students on test-
taking strategies 3.0 (1.87) 3.0 (1.92) 2.9 (1.82)
Review/practice using
state-released test
items 2.3 (2.02) 2.4 (2.07) 2.0 (1.99)
Student practice in
the kinds of item
formats that are on
state test(s) 3.1 (1.92) 3.1 (1.99) 2.8 (2.00)
How much time do you spend in your classroom on the following test
preparation activities during the second 1/3 of the year?
Worksheets for test
preparation 3.7 (1.71) 3.6 (1.80) 3.5 (1.88)
Instruction for
students on test-
taking strategies 3.4 (1.77) 3.3 (1.83) 3.1 (1.81)
Review/practice using
state-released test
items 3.0 (2.00) 2.8 (2.03) 2.4 (2.02)
Student practice in
the kinds of item
formats that are on
state test(s) 3.5 (1.76) 3.4 (1.86) 3.1 (1.95)
How much time do you spend in your classroom on the following test
preparation activities during the month prior to state testing?
Worksheets for test
preparation 3.8 (1.75) 3.8 (1.83) 3.7 (1.81)
Instruction for
students on test-
taking strategies 4.0 (1.63) 3.7 (1.80) 3.5 (1.81)
Review/practice using
state-released test
items 3.6 (1.99) 3.4 (1.99) 3.0 (2.06)
Student practice in
the kinds of item
formats that are
on state test(s) 4.0 (1.72) 3.9 (1.77) 3.6 (1.87)
How much time do you spend in your classroom on the following test
preparation activities after state testing?
Worksheets for test
preparation 3.0 (2.07) 3.0 (2.02) 2.8 (2.14)
Instruction for
students on test-
taking strategies 1.8 (2.01) 1.9 (1.97) 1.7 (1.95)
Review/practice using
state-released test
items 1.4 (1.88) 1.4 (1.86) 1.2 (1.74)
Student practice in
the kinds of item
formats that are on
state test(s) 2.0 (2.09) 2.0 (2.07) 1.9 (1.98)
Notes: Available range: 0=None; 1=One day; 2=A few days; 3=One week;
4=One month; 5=Regularly.
Means were rounded to the nearest tenth; standard deviations are in
parentheses.
Table 3
Effects of State Testing Results on Instruction as Reported by Teachers
(n=1,289)
Below Grade At Grade Above Grade
Item Level (n=328) Level (n=581) Level (n=380)
How have state test
results affected your
instruction?
I teach to the state
test(s) more than I
normally would 64 60 59
I omit certain
information because
there is not enough
time to fit it in
because of state
test(s) 64 60 52
I do not do certain
things that look
interesting or
beneficial for
students unless they
are on the state test 37 28 26
I do not do anything
differently because
of the state tests 19 20 26
Notes: Available Range: 0=Not checked; 1=Checked. Percentages have been
rounded to the nearest whole number.
Table 4
Areas Receiving Attention during Instruction (n=1,289)
Below Grade At Grade Above Grade
Item Level (n=328) Level (n=581) Level (n=380)
How much attention are
you able to give to
the following areas
in your classroom?
Higher order thinking
skills 2.5 (.61) 2.6 (.56) 2.7 (.48)
Problem solving skills 2.7 (.47) 2.8 (.45) 2.8 (.41)
Topics not on state
tests 2.0 (.71) 2.0 (.68) 2.2 (.64)
Fine and performing
arts 1.7 (.67) 1.7 (.71) 1.8 (.68)
Basic skills 2.8 (.50) 2.8 (.40) 2.8 (.43)
Factual knowledge 2.6 (.54) 2.7 (.50) 2.6 (.51)
Enrichment 2.0 (.72) 2.1 (.70) 2.3 (.67)
Notes: Available Range: 1=Rarely to 3=Often. Standard deviations are
in parentheses.
Table 5
Use of Particular Assessment Strategies (n=1,289)
Below Grade At Grade Above Grade
Item Level (n=328) Level (n=581) Level (n=380)
How frequently are the
following practices
used in your
classroom?
Constructed response
items 2.2 (.78) 2.2 (.78) 2.2 (.78)
Multiple choice items 2.3 (.71) 2.2 (.71) 2.2 (.71)
Long term projects 1.8 (.73) 2.0 (.70) 2.0 (.70)
Performance items 2.1 (.69) 2.2 (.65) 2.2 (.65)
Test preparation 2.6 (.58) 2.6 (.64) 2.6 (.64)
Notes: Available Range: 1=Rarely to 3=Often. Standard deviations are
in parentheses.
Table 7
Potential Consequences as a Result of Poor Test Performance (n=1,298)
Below Grade At Grade Above Grade
Item Level (n=328) Level (n=581) Level (n=380)
What are the potential consequences to teachers whose students perform
poorly on state test(s) in your school?
Potential loss of
position as a
teacher in this
school or school
district 25 18 15
Reassignment of grade
level or type of
students taught 38 31 28
Private reprimand 34 30 32
Pressure to change
teaching strategies 67 64 64
No consequences 20 25 24
Notes: Available Range: 0=Not checked; 1=Checked. Percentages have been
rounded to the nearest whole number.
| | Manuscript submitted March, 2002. Revision accepted June, 2002. (1) Market Data Retrieval is the leading U.S. supplier of educational information. MDR collects the most comprehensive and accurate database of educational institutions and personnel available from preschool through college. (www.schooldata.com) (2) According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), based on a population over 75,000 teachers, 382 returned surveys were needed for a representative sample. REFERENCES Appalachia Educational Lab. (1994). Perceptions of school change: Interviews with Kentucky students. A report submitted to the Kentucky caucus of the AEL board of directors. Charleston, WV: Author. Blumer, H. (1972). Symbolic interactionism. In J. Spradley (Ed.), Culture and cognition (pp. 65-83). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Brown, D.F. (1992, April). Altering curricula through state testing: Perceptions of teachers and principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No ED 344 925) Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Hunsaker, S. L., Bland, L. C., & Moon, T. R. (1995). Instruments and evaluation designs used in gifted programs (Report No. 95132). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Clementson, J. J., & Wenger, L. (1998). Gifted students grade their schools. Reclaiming Children & Youth: Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Problems, 6(4), 208-211. College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service. (1999). Advanced Placement Program: 1999 Yearbook. New York: Author. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). Annual survey of state student assessment programs. Washington, D.C.: Author. Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1990, April). Validity in qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: MacMillan. Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test score gap). In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 273-317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1996). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students' views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-136. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70. Goslin, D. A. (1967). Teachers and testing. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning--another look. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 341738) Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement.' Issues and Practice, 12(4), 20-25, 41-42. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McNeil, L., & Valenzeula, A. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas.' Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Retrieved June 6, 2002 from http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/conferences/testing98 /drafts/mcneil-valenzuela.html. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. (ERIC Reproduction Service No ED 337 468) U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). Definitions and glossary. Retrieved April 30, 2000 from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html. Wright, W. E. (2002, June 5). The effects of high-stakes testing in an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education, 5(5). Retrieved July 12, 2002, from: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number5. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practices: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Author Note Funding for this research was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant R206R000001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encourage to express freely their professional judgment. This research, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors would like to thank Trudy Clemons, Holly Hertberg, Miriam Font-Rivera, Cheryl Stuntz, and Guoping Zhao for their assistance in data analysis. Tonya R. Moon, Ph. D. is an assistant professor at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia and a principal investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. She earned her masters degree from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in gifted education and her doctorate degree from the University of Virginia in educational measurement, research, and evaluation. Her areas of expertise include educational measurement and assessment with a particular interest in assisting teachers in the appropriate use of assessment information for the improvement of student learning. Catherine M. Brighton, Ph. D. is an assistant professor at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, a principal investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented and coordinator of the Summer Institute on Academic Diversity at the University of Virginia. She is president-elect for the Virginia Association for the Gifted, is a former classroom teacher, teacher of the gifted, curriculum coordinator, and an elementary assistant principal. Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph. D. is a professor in the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, and also associate director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. She teaches courses in the area of education of the gifted, and is executive director of the Summer Enrichment Program. Dr. Callahan has authored more than 100 articles, 25 book chapters and monographs on the topics of creativity, the identification of gifted students, program evaluation, and the issues faced by gifted females. |
|
