Suchergebnisse

This brief examines the theoretical basis behind high-stakes accountability, the intended and unintended consequences of such systems, and proposed alternative reform models. It also reviews existing research on all models, although the research is scant for some alternatives. As a caution to research consumers, the brief also details the highly political nature of much related contemporary research.

Using several analyses of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test data from 25 states, a link between pressures associated with high-stakes testing and student achievement could not be established. The results of this research suggest that increases in testing pressure are related to increased retention in grade and drop-out rates.

Two recent reports from the Fordham Institute address the question of the impact of state accountability systems on "high achievers," referred to in the reports as "students who have already crossed the proficiency threshold." Both reports argue that this group is being neglected educationally, and they advocate for accountability systems to be redesigned to attend to the needs of high-achieving students. Both reports also recommend that states use a "performance index," as opposed to proficiency rates, to measure school achievement. This review, however, concludes that: 1) the reports' central assumptions about high-achieving students are problematic; 2) growth measures are not an effective means for directing attention to high-achieving students; 3) narrow, high-stakes forms of assessment may negatively impact the education provided to these students; and, 4) further stratifying educational settings and reallocating resources toward "high-achieving" students has troublesome implications for the democratic goals of education. Implementation of the reports' recommendations may in fact result in a furthering of the inequitable educational opportunities that ESSA was designed to reduce.

The use of high stakes testing as the primary tool of school reform is sweeping the nation. Proponents of standardized tests, including most state legislatures, the President, governors, boards of education and even the American Federation of Teachers, have embraced the rhetoric of higher and tougher standards.

Dropout rates and high-stakes testing receive their share of media attention, but the likely connection between the two is rarely discussed outside of education circles. Yet much recent research and anecdotal evidence suggest at least a correlation between high-stakes testing of the sort mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and dropout rates. Students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, appear to be dropping out of school earlier and in much greater numbers than previously believed, and high-stakes testing may be a leading cause. Moreover, schools overestimate graduation rates, and NCLB actually provides incentives for schools to encourage students, particularly students expected to perform poorly, either to drop out or transfer before taking their proficiency exams.

Argues that George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which centers on high-stakes testing, encourages drop outs. Data indicating drop out rates are examined before describing the provisions of the NCLB. Demonstrated is the disconnect between the rhetoric of this act and the practical reality, presenting evidence from TX and FL of the link between high-stakes testing and drop out rates. Under the NCLB, schools are seen to encourage students at risk of failing the tests to dropout or transfer prior to the test date. It is contended that, as written, the NCLB harms children. D. Edelman

To explore the policy impact of Florida's state testing and accountability program on classroom practices, teachers, and students as perceived by educators, this brief presents the results of a national survey in which the responses of Florida teachers are compared with those of practitioners in other states using high-stakes exams.

This article is concerned with high stakes testing in England, where system-wide marketoriented reforms have been introduced into the school-based education system. It focuses in particular on the consequences of such testing in terms of accountability, teaching, learning and resourcing. The article argues that not only are there serious consequences associated with the testing regime, but there are also doubts about the validity of the test results. Moreover, there are concerns about whether a focus on high stakes test results is meeting the needs of society more generally: there is a strong argument for indicators used for the purposes of accountability to tie in with the wider goals of education.