A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Abstract

Current accountability measures - particularly high-stakes testing - may have seriously weakened the academic standards they were intended to raise, Ms. Rotberg argues. ACCOUNTABILITY has become the centerpiece of political rhetoric on education reform. The underlying assumption is straightforward: hold teachers and students accountable for students' scores on standardized tests, and academic standards will rise. Sounds good. But it doesn't work. Our current preoccupation with standardized testing began in the 1980s with the publication of reports claiming that the U.S. education system had declined. While this conclusion was not supported by the data, the accountability measures it triggered - in particular high-stakes testing - may have created a self-fulfilling prophecy by seriously weakening the academic standards they were intended to raise. These are a few of the unintended consequences of our national fixation on high- stakes testing. * High-stakes testing weakens academic standards when the test becomes the education program. The emphasis on cramming for the test is inevitable as long as teachers and students are held accountable for test scores. Many schools now spend weeks, even months, on test- preparation activities. Because the tests are not typically derived from the curriculum, teachers have no choice but to teach to the tests. The tests themselves become the curriculum and, in turn, replace the school's ongoing academic program. The focus on testing, therefore, narrows the curriculum and encourages rote learning. Even the few tests that measure broader skills, such as writing or analytical thinking, were never intended to serve as the basis for a course of study. It is not surprising, therefore, that private schools and some charter schools (when they have the option) do not participate in high-stakes testing programs. * High-stakes testing weakens the quality of education by encouraging, or even requiring, policies that may not be in the best interest of the children. Some jurisdictions pressure educators to include all children in the testing program. Others make it easier to assign students to special programs specifically to exempt potentially low- scoring students from the test. The risk is that children's experiences may depend more on the incentive systems in each state and school district than on a careful examination of their individual needs. Moreover, high-stakes testing gives school systems incentives to retain potentially low-scoring students in the grade immediately preceding the test-administration year - a practice that leads to the appearance of gains in test scores but also increases dropout rates. My point here is not hypothetical, nor is it limited to the current generation of accountability plans or to the United States. In the 1940s Irish schools responded to accountability pressures by increasing grade retention.1 More recently, World Bank studies report exclusions in China and Kenya.2 Similar reports are now emerging in the U.S., for example, from Kentucky and Texas, states that place strong emphasis on test-based accountability. An assessment coordinator in Kentucky put it this way: I'm concerned because we have fewer students after grade 9, and it looks like it's to a school's advantage to get kids to drop out rather than to keep them on the rolls and have poor test scores at grade 12.3 * High-stakes testing weakens academic standards when it discourages the most qualified teachers and principals from remaining in the profession. A focus on test-based accountability has significant implications for the teaching environment because it affects instructional practices, public image, salaries, school takeovers, and the resources available to schools. If well-intentioned policies lead to excessive demands on teachers and principals, they may have adverse effects on job satisfaction and, in turn, on the ability of the profession to attract and retain highly qualified educators. …