Division in the Ranks: Standardized Testing Draws Lines between New and Veteran Teachers

Abstract

In the end, Ms. Winkler found that variation in teachers' attitudes toward the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) test depended primarily on their own accrued time in the profession. Experienced teachers saw the test in terms of losses, while inexperienced teachers saw the test in terms of gains. IT IS HARD to believe that it's been three years since I taught English in an inner-city high school in Norfolk. I remember well the run-down 1950s-era building; its worn stairs, temperamental radiators, and dim hallways made for a less-than-stellar work environment. Its lack of air conditioning primed those of us who taught there for steamy afternoons and for students crankier than the crank-roll windows we wrestled with each morning. it wasn't the building or the sweaty teenagers that hastened my return to grad school; it was the way in which the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) test was implemented at my school. Allow me to issue a quick caveat. Though my experience with standards and standardized testing echoes the research of high-stakes testing opponents,1 I do not intend to reiterate the litany of complaints that they have documented so well already. My reason for conducting the study reported here and for writing this article certainly springs from my own desire to vent frustration over the perennial search for the pot of golden test scores at the end of the rote-recall rainbow. However, I must face one fact: not all teachers felt the threat to teaching freedom as I once did. In fact, many teachers welcomed the introduction into their classrooms of a highly structured, objective, and prescriptive test. It is this difference in teacher attitudes I wish to explore here. Initially, I interviewed and observed three Virginia teachers with at least nine years of experience. after each made remarks like, But Ms. Jones across the hall doesn't feel that I began to notice that the difference between the interviewed teacher and Ms. Jones was in years of experience. I decided to add three new teachers to my sample (those with less than two years of experience). Thus I spent roughly a year with six teachers, who taught at five different schools and represented the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In the end, it appeared that variation in the teachers' attitudes had less to do with how individual schools implemented the SOL test (what I thought would emerge as the key factor) than with a teacher's accrued time in the profession. In short, I found that new and veteran teachers' beliefs about the Virginia SOL test differed with regard to two areas: one having to do with broad losses and gains and one having to do with a teacher's sense of efficacy. Losses and Gains In a nutshell, experienced teachers saw the SOL test in terms of losses, while inexperienced teachers saw the test in terms of gains. The losses could be categorized into issues of power and professionalism for the veterans, and the gains could be categorized into issues of collaboration and pedagogical freedom for the new teachers. Both experienced teachers and inexperienced teachers saw the losses or gains as related to a philosophical construct. Experienced teachers often expressed frustration and indignation when talking about the SOL test. These emotions were rooted in the feeling that teachers had lost power as a result of the implementation of the test. On both the basic and superficial levels, this loss of power manifested itself in increased paperwork. The teachers talked of having to put the SOL numbers in their plans, on the board, on tests, and in handouts. One teacher said that the members of her department had to post a listing of their grade's SOL objectives on the classroom door and write in the date that each benchmark had been covered. That way, the department head could walk by and see at a glance which teachers had covered which SOL numbers and when -- essentially ensuring that teachers were pacing themselves in accordance with the curriculum guide. …