Promoting responsible accountability in schools and education

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 83, Issue 9, 1999, Pages 662-673

  Sirotnik, Kenneth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040216590     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170208300908     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. The less-than-encouraging studies of the "Texas miracle" and the long-term reform efforts in Kentucky offer evidence of the punitive nature of these practices. "Kentucky's accountability approach has undermined the very changes in teaching and learning that it was intended to promote, calling into question the use of performance assessment for high-stakes accountability," say Betty Lou Whitford and Ken Jones, eds., Accountability, Assessment, and Teacher Commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's Reform Efforts (New York: State University of New York, 2000), p. 21. Accord ing to the extensive analysis of the available data by Walt Haney, "The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 August 2000, available at epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v8n41, "Texas schools are devoting a huge amount of time and energy to preparing students specifically for TAAS [Texas Assessment of Academic Skills]. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is hurting more than helping teaching and learning in Texas schools. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is particularly harmful to at-risk students. . . . Emphasis on TAAS contributes to retention in grade and dropping out of school," sect. 8, p. 6. Of course the fallout from high-stakes testing is not a new phenomenon. See, for example, Susan Bobitt Nolen, Thomas H. Haladyna, and Nancy S. Hass, "Uses and Abuses of Achievement Test Scores," Educational Measurement: Theory and Practice, Summer 1992, vol. 11, pp. 9-15.
2. The less-than-encouraging studies of the "Texas miracle" and the long-term reform efforts in Kentucky offer evidence of the punitive nature of these practices. "Kentucky's accountability approach has undermined the very changes in teaching and learning that it was intended to promote, calling into question the use of performance assessment for high-stakes accountability," say Betty Lou Whitford and Ken Jones, eds., Accountability, Assessment, and Teacher Commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's Reform Efforts (New York: State University of New York, 2000), p. 21. Accord ing to the extensive analysis of the available data by Walt Haney, "The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 August 2000, available at epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v8n41, "Texas schools are devoting a huge amount of time and energy to preparing students specifically for TAAS [Texas Assessment of Academic Skills]. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is hurting more than helping teaching and learning in Texas schools. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is particularly harmful to at-risk students. . . . Emphasis on TAAS contributes to retention in grade and dropping out of school," sect. 8, p. 6. Of course the fallout from high-stakes testing is not a new phenomenon. See, for example, Susan Bobitt Nolen, Thomas H. Haladyna, and Nancy S. Hass, "Uses and Abuses of Achievement Test Scores," Educational Measurement: Theory and Practice, Summer 1992, vol. 11, pp. 9-15.
3. The less-than-encouraging studies of the "Texas miracle" and the long-term reform efforts in Kentucky offer evidence of the punitive nature of these practices. "Kentucky's accountability approach has undermined the very changes in teaching and learning that it was intended to promote, calling into question the use of performance assessment for high-stakes accountability," say Betty Lou Whitford and Ken Jones, eds., Accountability, Assessment, and Teacher Commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's Reform Efforts (New York: State University of New York, 2000), p. 21. Accord ing to the extensive analysis of the available data by Walt Haney, "The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 August 2000, available at epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v8n41, "Texas schools are devoting a huge amount of time and energy to preparing students specifically for TAAS [Texas Assessment of Academic Skills]. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is hurting more than helping teaching and learning in Texas schools. . . . Emphasis on TAAS is particularly harmful to at-risk students. . . . Emphasis on TAAS contributes to retention in grade and dropping out of school," sect. 8, p. 6. Of course the fallout from high-stakes testing is not a new phenomenon. See, for example, Susan Bobitt Nolen, Thomas H. Haladyna, and Nancy S. Hass, "Uses and Abuses of Achievement Test Scores," Educational Measurement: Theory and Practice, Summer 1992, vol. 11, pp. 9-15.
4. In addition to Haney's analyses cited above, see Jay P. Heubert and Robert M. Hauser, eds., High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999), chap. 7.
5. Again, the accountability reforms in Texas and Kentucky are informative. See Linda M. NcNeil, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing (New York: Routledge, 2000); and Whitford and Jones, op. cit. If you want to move on to other states, see, for example, M. Gail Jones et al., "The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Teachers and Students in North Carolina," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 199-203; or, moving to the north, Abby Goodnough, "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers," New York Times, 14 June 2001, p. A-1.
6. Again, the accountability reforms in Texas and Kentucky are informative. See Linda M. NcNeil, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing (New York: Routledge, 2000); and Whitford and Jones, op. cit. If you want to move on to other states, see, for example, M. Gail Jones et al., "The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Teachers and Students in North Carolina," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 199-203; or, moving to the north, Abby Goodnough, "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers," New York Times, 14 June 2001, p. A-1.
7. Again, the accountability reforms in Texas and Kentucky are informative. See Linda M. NcNeil, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing (New York: Routledge, 2000); and Whitford and Jones, op. cit. If you want to move on to other states, see, for example, M. Gail Jones et al., "The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Teachers and Students in North Carolina," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 199-203; or, moving to the north, Abby Goodnough, "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers," New York Times, 14 June 2001, p. A-1.
8. Again, the accountability reforms in Texas and Kentucky are informative. See Linda M. NcNeil, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing (New York: Routledge, 2000); and Whitford and Jones, op. cit. If you want to move on to other states, see, for example, M. Gail Jones et al., "The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Teachers and Students in North Carolina," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 199-203; or, moving to the north, Abby Goodnough, "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers," New York Times, 14 June 2001, p. A-1.
9. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
10. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
11. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
12. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
13. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
14. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
15. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
16. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
17. Notwithstanding the court rulings thus far in favor of allowing high-stakes exit examinations (e.g., New York, Louisiana, and Texas), momentum against such use of tests is mounting and may eventually lead to a successful challenge in some state(s). Much of this momentum in the form of protests and boycotts is documented in the FairTest Examiner, the newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (www. fairtest.org). An interesting and enlightened parent movement can be found at http://pasaorg.tripod.com. See also Peter Schrag, "High Stakes Are for Tomatoes," Atlantic, August 2000, pp. 19-21. The Texas case (GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., No. SA-97-CA-1278-EP) has been widely criticized and is based on a basic-skills test, not a high-standards-based test like the current system in Washington State. When substantial numbers of middle-and upper-class students start failing high-standards exit exams, the protests are likely to pick up considerable steam. Already parents in some communities - Scarsdale, New York; Marin County, California; Panama City, Florida; and others - are launching protests. See, for example, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Protests Over State Testing Widespread," Education Week, 16 May 2001, pp. 1, 26. Still, the students really hurt by all of this continue to be those disenfranchised children in poorer communities and in grossly underfunded and poorly staffed schools. There is no way in which reasonable arguments can be made that students in such systems have equal opportunities to learn, and it may be on this or similar bases (e.g., discrimination in terms of disproportionate failure rates) that future court cases may be won. See, for example, the "public advisory" issued by the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Massachusetts, 11 April 2000 (www.aclu-mass. org/youth/studentrights/mcasadvisory.html). Arizona has recently put off its high school exit exam until the year 2006 precisely out of fear of impending lawsuits and in response to the filing of a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, according to Darcia Harris Bowman, "Delayed Again: Ariz. Moves High School Exit Exam to 2006," Education Week, 5 September 2001, p. 27. Finally, what may turn out to be a landmark case - Williams et al. v. State of California - is the current lawsuit in California filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other rights advocates arguing that equal opportunities to learn are simply not possible under such documented conditions as lack of materials and basic resources, inadequate instruction, massive over-crowding, and degraded, unhealthful facilities and conditions. See "Landmark Lawsuit on Behalf of Public School Students Demands Basic Education Rights Promised in State Constitution," 17 May 2000, available at www.aclu.org/news/2000/n051700a.html.
18. I refer here to Project PRAISE, currently funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and to my immediate colleagues Shawn Olson Brown, Paul Heckman, Roger Soder, and Patricia Wasley. Although I use "we" in what follows, I take full responsibility for the views expressed here. Moreover, these views are not necessarily those of the Rockefeller Foundation.
19. See Kenneth A. Sirotnik and Kathy Kimball, "Standards for Standards-Based Accountability," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 209-14; and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, "Making Sense of Educational Renewal," Phi Delta Kappan, April 1999, pp. 606-10.
20. See Kenneth A. Sirotnik and Kathy Kimball, "Standards for Standards-Based Accountability," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1999, pp. 209-14; and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, "Making Sense of Educational Renewal," Phi Delta Kappan, April 1999, pp. 606-10.
21. See, for example, Roger Soder, "Education for Democracy: The Foundation for Democratic Character," in Roger Soder, John I. Goodlad, and Timothy J. McMannon, eds., Developing Democratic Character in the Young (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), pp. 182-205. See also the collection of work in Roger Soder, ed., Democracy, Education, and the Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996).
22. See, for example, Roger Soder, "Education for Democracy: The Foundation for Democratic Character," in Roger Soder, John I. Goodlad, and Timothy J. McMannon, eds., Developing Democratic Character in the Young (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), pp. 182-205. See also the collection of work in Roger Soder, ed., Democracy, Education, and the Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996).
23. Benjamin R. Barber, "America Skips School," Harper's, November 1993, p. 44.
24. For more on what is meant by "moral endeavor," see John I. Goodlad, Roger Soder, and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, eds., The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).
25. Examples of this knowledge include much of the work produced by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at UCLA (www.cse.ucla.edu) and by the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy at Boston College (www. csteep.bc.edu). Moreover, there is still more to be learned from educators in the field who are inventing new and robust ways to work more responsibly under increasing demands for higher content standards and more accountability. One example is the current work of the Shared Accountability Committee in the Edmonds School District, just north of Seattle. Other examples have been shared in the pages of this journal. See the recent article by Selma Wassermann, "Quantum Theory, the Uncertainty Principle, and the Alchemy of Standardized Testing," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, pp. 28-40. In addition, there is much to be learned from the work of the Coalition of Essential Schools about the various approaches to exhibiting what students know and can do and about the making of good professional judgments about student progress. See, for example, Kathleen Cushman, "Documenting Whole-School Change in Essential Schools," Horace, January 1996, pp. 1-7. Finally, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing has sponsored a number of interesting critiques and useful publications, including "Principles and Indicators for Student Assessment Systems" and "Implementing Performance Assessments: A Guide to Classroom, School and System Reform," available on the FairTest website (www.fairtest.org).
26. Examples of this knowledge include much of the work produced by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at UCLA (www.cse.ucla.edu) and by the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy at Boston College (www. csteep.bc.edu). Moreover, there is still more to be learned from educators in the field who are inventing new and robust ways to work more responsibly under increasing demands for higher content standards and more accountability. One example is the current work of the Shared Accountability Committee in the Edmonds School District, just north of Seattle. Other examples have been shared in the pages of this journal. See the recent article by Selma Wassermann, "Quantum Theory, the Uncertainty Principle, and the Alchemy of Standardized Testing," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, pp. 28-40. In addition, there is much to be learned from the work of the Coalition of Essential Schools about the various approaches to exhibiting what students know and can do and about the making of good professional judgments about student progress. See, for example, Kathleen Cushman, "Documenting Whole-School Change in Essential Schools," Horace, January 1996, pp. 1-7. Finally, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing has sponsored a number of interesting critiques and useful publications, including "Principles and Indicators for Student Assessment Systems" and "Implementing Performance Assessments: A Guide to Classroom, School and System Reform," available on the FairTest website (www.fairtest.org).
27. Examples of this knowledge include much of the work produced by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at UCLA (www.cse.ucla.edu) and by the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy at Boston College (www. csteep.bc.edu). Moreover, there is still more to be learned from educators in the field who are inventing new and robust ways to work more responsibly under increasing demands for higher content standards and more accountability. One example is the current work of the Shared Accountability Committee in the Edmonds School District, just north of Seattle. Other examples have been shared in the pages of this journal. See the recent article by Selma Wassermann, "Quantum Theory, the Uncertainty Principle, and the Alchemy of Standardized Testing," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, pp. 28-40. In addition, there is much to be learned from the work of the Coalition of Essential Schools about the various approaches to exhibiting what students know and can do and about the making of good professional judgments about student progress. See, for example, Kathleen Cushman, "Documenting Whole-School Change in Essential Schools," Horace, January 1996, pp. 1-7. Finally, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing has sponsored a number of interesting critiques and useful publications, including "Principles and Indicators for Student Assessment Systems" and "Implementing Performance Assessments: A Guide to Classroom, School and System Reform," available on the FairTest website (www.fairtest.org).
28. Brian A. Jacob, "Getting Tough? The Impact of High School Graduation Exams," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 2001, pp. 99-121.
29. Lorrie Shepard, "The Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Instruction," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991; McNeil, chap. 7; and George F. Madaus, "The Influence of Testing on the Curriculum," in Laurel N. Tanner, ed., Critical Issues in Curriculum: Eighty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
30. Lorrie Shepard, "The Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Instruction," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991; McNeil, chap. 7; and George F. Madaus, "The Influence of Testing on the Curriculum," in Laurel N. Tanner, ed., Critical Issues in Curriculum: Eighty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
31. John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); and Ernest L. Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). Moreover, recent polls suggest that a sensible public has become thoroughly confused by all the political rhetoric surrounding standards and high-stakes testing and accountability. The most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll indicates that more than half (57%) of the public favors the use of a single standardized test as a criterion for high school graduation. Yet two-thirds of these same respondents say that standardized tests should be used to guide instruction, and only about one-third think they should assess how much students have learned. Finally, nearly two-thirds think student learning should be assessed by the day-to-day work in classrooms, including homework. See Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, "The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, p. 54.
32. John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); and Ernest L. Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). Moreover, recent polls suggest that a sensible public has become thoroughly confused by all the political rhetoric surrounding standards and high-stakes testing and accountability. The most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll indicates that more than half (57%) of the public favors the use of a single standardized test as a criterion for high school graduation. Yet two-thirds of these same respondents say that standardized tests should be used to guide instruction, and only about one-third think they should assess how much students have learned. Finally, nearly two-thirds think student learning should be assessed by the day-to-day work in classrooms, including homework. See Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, "The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, p. 54.
33. John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); and Ernest L. Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). Moreover, recent polls suggest that a sensible public has become thoroughly confused by all the political rhetoric surrounding standards and high-stakes testing and accountability. The most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll indicates that more than half (57%) of the public favors the use of a single standardized test as a criterion for high school graduation. Yet two-thirds of these same respondents say that standardized tests should be used to guide instruction, and only about one-third think they should assess how much students have learned. Finally, nearly two-thirds think student learning should be assessed by the day-to-day work in classrooms, including homework. See Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, "The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2001, p. 54.
34. On individualization, see Lyn Corno and Richard E. Snow, "Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences Among Learners," in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 605-29. On developmental issues, see Richard Sprinthall and Norman A. Sprinthall, Educational Psychology: A Developmental View (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998). On learning styles, see Geneva Gay, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), chap. 6; and Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, 1991). On retention issues, see Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, eds., Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (London: Falmer Press, 1989); and Heubert and Hauser, chap. 6.
35. On individualization, see Lyn Corno and Richard E. Snow, "Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences Among Learners," in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 605-29. On developmental issues, see Richard Sprinthall and Norman A. Sprinthall, Educational Psychology: A Developmental View (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998). On learning styles, see Geneva Gay, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), chap. 6; and Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, 1991). On retention issues, see Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, eds., Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (London: Falmer Press, 1989); and Heubert and Hauser, chap. 6.
36. On individualization, see Lyn Corno and Richard E. Snow, "Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences Among Learners," in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 605-29. On developmental issues, see Richard Sprinthall and Norman A. Sprinthall, Educational Psychology: A Developmental View (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998). On learning styles, see Geneva Gay, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), chap. 6; and Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, 1991). On retention issues, see Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, eds., Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (London: Falmer Press, 1989); and Heubert and Hauser, chap. 6.
37. On individualization, see Lyn Corno and Richard E. Snow, "Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences Among Learners," in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 605-29. On developmental issues, see Richard Sprinthall and Norman A. Sprinthall, Educational Psychology: A Developmental View (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998). On learning styles, see Geneva Gay, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), chap. 6; and Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, 1991). On retention issues, see Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, eds., Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (London: Falmer Press, 1989); and Heubert and Hauser, chap. 6.
38. On individualization, see Lyn Corno and Richard E. Snow, "Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences Among Learners," in Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 605-29. On developmental issues, see Richard Sprinthall and Norman A. Sprinthall, Educational Psychology: A Developmental View (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998). On learning styles, see Geneva Gay, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), chap. 6; and Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, 1991). On retention issues, see Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, eds., Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (London: Falmer Press, 1989); and Heubert and Hauser, chap. 6.
39. See Russell W. Rumberger, "Why Students Drop Out of School and What Can Be Done," paper prepared for a conference on Dropouts in America: How Severe Is the Problem? What Do We Know About Intervention and Prevention?, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 13 January 2001. For example, Rumberger reports a study by James Catterall, who estimated costs of $3.2 billion plus $400 million in lost earnings and increased social services respectively due to the impact of one year's worth of high school dropouts in one U.S. city - and this was in 1987 dollars! See James S. Catterall, "On the Social Costs of Dropping Out of School," High School Journal, November 1987, pp. 19-30.
40. See Russell W. Rumberger, "Why Students Drop Out of School and What Can Be Done," paper prepared for a conference on Dropouts in America: How Severe Is the Problem? What Do We Know About Intervention and Prevention?, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 13 January 2001. For example, Rumberger reports a study by James Catterall, who estimated costs of $3.2 billion plus $400 million in lost earnings and increased social services respectively due to the impact of one year's worth of high school dropouts in one U.S. city - and this was in 1987 dollars! See James S. Catterall, "On the Social Costs of Dropping Out of School," High School Journal, November 1987, pp. 19-30.
41. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
42. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
43. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
44. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
45. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
46. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
47. For an overview of "opportunity to learn" issues, see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995. On issues of unequal resources, see Jonathon Kozol, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (New York: Crown, 1991); and Gretchen Guiton and Jeannie Oakes, "Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 1995, pp. 323-36. On tracking, school size, and class size, see Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); Deborah Meier, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Jeremy D. Finn and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, 1990, pp. 557-77; and the special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999.
48. See, for example, Penelope L. Peterson and Herbert J. Walberg, eds., Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1979); and Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement," in Wittrock, pp. 328-75. For a recent review at the policy level, see Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence (Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, 1999). See also What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).
49. See, for example, Penelope L. Peterson and Herbert J. Walberg, eds., Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1979); and Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement," in Wittrock, pp. 328-75. For a recent review at the policy level, see Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence (Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, 1999). See also What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).
50. See, for example, Penelope L. Peterson and Herbert J. Walberg, eds., Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1979); and Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement," in Wittrock, pp. 328-75. For a recent review at the policy level, see Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence (Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, 1999). See also What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).
51. See, for example, Penelope L. Peterson and Herbert J. Walberg, eds., Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications (Berkeley, Calif.:
52. See John D. Baldwin and Janice I. Baldwin, Behavior Principles in Everyday Life (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 320-23. An important and related argument could be made regarding the ineffectiveness of extrinsic motivation and its negative impact on "natural human self-regulation." See Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, "When Rewards Compete with Nature:The Undermining of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Regulation," in Carol Sansone and Judith M. Harackiewicz, eds., Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (San Diego: Academic Press, 2000), p. 48 .
53. See John D. Baldwin and Janice I. Baldwin, Behavior Principles in Everyday Life (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 320-23. An important and related argument could be made regarding the ineffectiveness of extrinsic motivation and its negative impact on "natural human self-regulation." See Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, "When Rewards Compete with Nature:The Undermining of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Regulation," in Carol Sansone and Judith M. Harackiewicz, eds., Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (San Diego: Academic Press, 2000), p. 48 .
54. Murray Sidman, Coercion and Its Fallout (Boston: Authors Cooperative, 1989), p. 78.
55. For a general analysis of the failures of top-down reform, see Thomas B. Timar and David L. Kirp, "Educational Reform and Institutional Competence," Harvard Educational Review, August 1987, pp. 308-30.
56. Suzanne M. Wilson, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Barnett Berry, A Case of Successful Teaching Policy: Connecticut's Long-Term Efforts to Improve Teaching and Learning (Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, 2001).
57. Melissa Roderick and Mimi Engel, "The Grasshopper and the Ant: Motivational Responses of Low-Achieving Students to High-Stakes Tests," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall 2001, p. 221.
58. See, for example, John I. Goodlad, The Dynamics of Educational Change (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); Seymour B. Sarason, Revisiting "The Culture of School and the Problem of Change" (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996); and Michael G. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press, 1991).
59. See, for example, John I. Goodlad, The Dynamics of Educational Change (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); Seymour B. Sarason, Revisiting "The Culture of School and the Problem of Change" (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996); and Michael G. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press, 1991).
60. See, for example, John I. Goodlad, The Dynamics of Educational Change (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); Seymour B. Sarason, Revisiting "The Culture of School and the Problem of Change" (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996); and Michael G. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press, 1991).
61. Seymour B. Sarason, Schooling in America: Scapegoat and Salvation (New York: Free Press, 1983), pp. 5-8.
62. Clearly, we're using "against the law" and "illegal" as rhetorical devices to frame the thought adventure we have in mind.
63. For an example from writing assessment, see Linda Mabry, "Writing to the Rubric: Lingering Effects of Traditional Standardized Testing on Direct Writing Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, May 1999, pp. 673-79.
64. By the way, keeping track of such information, both qualitative and quantitative, is relatively simple these days with computer technology.
65. Wassermann, op. cit.; Linda Darling-Hammond, "Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing the Capacity for School Transformation," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993, pp. 753-61; and Meier, op. cit. See also Catherine S. Taylor, "Incorporating Classroom-Based Assessments into Large-Scale Assessment Programs," in Gerald Tindal and Thomas M. Haladyna, eds., Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Validity, Technical Adequacy, & Implementation (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2002).
66. Wassermann, op. cit.; Linda Darling-Hammond, "Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing the Capacity for School Transformation," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993, pp. 753-61; and Meier, op. cit. See also Catherine S. Taylor, "Incorporating Classroom-Based Assessments into Large-Scale Assessment Programs," in Gerald Tindal and Thomas M. Haladyna, eds., Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Validity, Technical Adequacy, & Implementation (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2002).
67. Wassermann, op. cit.; Linda Darling-Hammond, "Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing the Capacity for School Transformation," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993, pp. 753-61; and Meier, op. cit. See also Catherine S. Taylor, "Incorporating Classroom-Based Assessments into Large-Scale Assessment Programs," in Gerald Tindal and Thomas M. Haladyna, eds., Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Validity, Technical Adequacy, & Implementation (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2002).
68. Wassermann, op. cit.; Linda Darling-Hammond, "Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing the Capacity for School Transformation," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1993, pp. 753-61; and Meier, op. cit. See also Catherine S. Taylor, "Incorporating Classroom-Based Assessments into Large-Scale Assessment Programs," in Gerald Tindal and Thomas M. Haladyna, eds., Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Validity, Technical Adequacy, & Implementation (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2002).
69. Israel Scheffler, Of Human Potential: An Essay in the Philosophy of Education (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 124.
70. We are using the idea of IEPs here as a metaphor. The last thing we want to do is create another huge bureaucracy, myriad forms, mazes of legal entanglements, and, most important, a "remedial" model of correcting "deficits" in student learning. Without endorsing any packaged program, a better acronym and set of pedagogical principles to use here might be IGE (Individually Guided Education), a 35-year-old idea that is still alive and relevant. (For information on IGE, see www.idea.org/ige-home.htm.)
71. We would also save at least half a billion dollars yearly, which states now spend on standardized testing of one form or another, and we could put that money back into day-to-day education, where it belongs. Estimating the cost of testing is a difficult task, and published results are probably serious underestimates because of all the hidden costs associated with preparing for tests, maintaining item banks, making continued refinements, etc. With this in mind, see the $400 million yearly estimate recently by Tiffany Dantz, "States Pay $400 Million for Tests In 2001," 27 February 2001, available at www.stateline.org. Yet even back in early-1990s dollars, estimates went past $500 million when school district spending was taken into account, according to David J. Hoff, "States Spend Nearly Half-a-Billion on Testing," Education Week, 14 March 2001. A substantial portion of whatever is saved should be reinvested in new and useful classroom assessment methods and in the professional development to support them. Useful resources already exist that attempt to refocus assessment and accountability and develop the expertise of teachers. See, for example, Linda Mabry, Portfolios Plus: A Critical Guide to Alternative Assessment (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1999); and Richard J. Stiggins, Student-Centered Classroom Assessment (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill, 1994). Moreover, there is plenty of new and useful work here for psychometricians interested in where the real action is - the intersection of teaching, learning, and assessment.
72. We would also save at least half a billion dollars yearly, which states now spend on standardized testing of one form or another, and we could put that money back into day-to-day education, where it belongs. Estimating the cost of testing is a difficult task, and published results are probably serious underestimates because of all the hidden costs associated with preparing for tests, maintaining item banks, making continued refinements, etc. With this in mind, see the $400 million yearly estimate recently by Tiffany Dantz, "States Pay $400 Million for Tests In 2001," 27 February 2001, available at www.stateline.org. Yet even back in early-1990s dollars, estimates went past $500 million when school district spending was taken into account, according to David J. Hoff, "States Spend Nearly Half-a-Billion on Testing," Education Week, 14 March 2001. A substantial portion of whatever is saved should be reinvested in new and useful classroom assessment methods and in the professional development to support them. Useful resources already exist that attempt to refocus assessment and accountability and develop the expertise of teachers. See, for example, Linda Mabry, Portfolios Plus: A Critical Guide to Alternative Assessment (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1999); and Richard J. Stiggins, Student-Centered Classroom Assessment (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill, 1994). Moreover, there is plenty of new and useful work here for psychometricians interested in where the real action is - the intersection of teaching, learning, and assessment.
73. We would also save at least half a billion dollars yearly, which states now spend on standardized testing of one form or another, and we could put that money back into day-to-day education, where it belongs. Estimating the cost of testing is a difficult task, and published results are probably serious underestimates because of all the hidden costs associated with preparing for tests, maintaining item banks, making continued refinements, etc. With this in mind, see the $400 million yearly estimate recently by Tiffany Dantz, "States Pay $400 Million for Tests In 2001," 27 February 2001, available at www.stateline.org. Yet even back in early-1990s dollars, estimates went past $500 million when school district spending was taken into account, according to David J. Hoff, "States Spend Nearly Half-a-Billion on Testing," Education Week, 14 March 2001. A substantial portion of whatever is saved should be reinvested in new and useful classroom assessment methods and in the professional development to support them. Useful resources already exist that attempt to refocus assessment and accountability and develop the expertise of teachers. See, for example, Linda Mabry, Portfolios Plus: A Critical Guide to Alternative Assessment (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1999); and Richard J. Stiggins, Student-Centered Classroom Assessment (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill, 1994). Moreover, there is plenty of new and useful work here for psychometricians interested in where the real action is - the intersection of teaching, learning, and assessment.
74. We would also save at least half a billion dollars yearly, which states now spend on standardized testing of one form or another, and we could put that money back into day-to-day education, where it belongs. Estimating the cost of testing is a difficult task, and published results are probably serious underestimates because of all the hidden costs associated with preparing for tests, maintaining item banks, making continued refinements, etc. With this in mind, see the $400 million yearly estimate recently by Tiffany Dantz, "States Pay $400 Million for Tests In 2001," 27 February 2001, available at www.stateline.org. Yet even back in early-1990s dollars, estimates went past $500 million when school district spending was taken into account, according to David J. Hoff, "States Spend Nearly Half-a-Billion on Testing," Education Week, 14 March 2001. A substantial portion of whatever is saved should be reinvested in new and useful classroom assessment methods and in the professional development to support them. Useful resources already exist that attempt to refocus assessment and accountability and develop the expertise of teachers. See, for example, Linda Mabry, Portfolios Plus: A Critical Guide to Alternative Assessment (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1999); and Richard J. Stiggins, Student-Centered Classroom Assessment (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill, 1994). Moreover, there is plenty of new and useful work here for psychometricians interested in where the real action is - the intersection of teaching, learning, and assessment.
75. As cited by Mabry, Portfolios Plus, p. 26. Mabry's critique of "psychometric," "contextual," and "personal" paradigms is highly relevant to our argument here. See her discussion in chapter 2. The quote is from Robert E. Stake, The Invalidity of Standardized Testing for Measuring Mathematics Achievement (Madison: National Center for Research on Mathematical Sciences Education, University of Wisconsin, 1991).
76. As cited by Mabry, Portfolios Plus, p. 26. Mabry's critique of "psychometric," "contextual," and "personal" paradigms is highly relevant to our argument here. See her discussion in chapter 2. The quote is from Robert E. Stake, The Invalidity of Standardized Testing for Measuring Mathematics Achievement (Madison: National Center for Research on Mathematical Sciences Education, University of Wisconsin, 1991).
77. If not aggregating and reporting data on some type of test battery, standards-based or otherwise, is simply too hard to swallow, politically or educationally, then at least consider seriously this alternative to high-stakes testing of individuals: use matrix sampling, which provides reliable estimates of mean performance at the school, district, and state levels and uses only a fifth to a tenth of the time required for testing at the individual level.
78. One interesting approach to accountability is that put forward by Larry Cuban, "Why Is It So Hard to Get 'Good' Schools?," in Larry Cuban and Dorothy Shipps, eds., Reconstructing the Common Good in Education: Coping with Intractable American Dilemmas (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 148-69. In addition, a number of new sources of ideas for alternative accountability practices are surfacing; see, for example, the website of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform and its "accountability toolbox" at www.annenberginstitute.org/accountability/toolbox/.
79. Years ago, in A Study of Schooling, we found remarkable consistency in the formal curriculum documents across states and in the operational curriculum in schools and classrooms. The main differences were in the contextual circumstances and affective environments of the schools. Parents, teachers, and students, however, valued all four major goal areas of schooling: the academic, personal, social, and vocational. They wanted it all. See Goodlad, A Place Called School, chap. 2; and Boyer, chap. 3.
80. I have already cited examples throughout this article. Another one worth noting is the proposed accountability system for Massachusetts put forth by the Coalition for Authentic Reform of Education (www. fairtest.org/arn/masspage.html). This proposal includes locally defined authentic assessments, limited standardized testing at parents' discretion, a school audit review process, and annual reporting by districts and schools to parents, the community, and the state.