Sample Thesis I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes of Idaho Elementary and Middle Level Teachers

toward Standards and Standards-based Testing

 

_______________________________________________________________

A Research Project

Presented to the Education Department of

Albertson College of Idaho

_______________________________________________________________

 

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Teaching

_______________________________________________________________

 

Allison Jean Brooks

July 2007

 

 

 

 

 

The Education Department

Upon the recommendation of the thesis committee

and the chair of the Department of Education

accepts this project in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Master of Arts in Teaching  for

 

 

MAT Candidate, Allison Brooks

 

Thesis Committee:

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Committee Member, Sharlea Alsager                Signature

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Committee Member, Kali Kurdy                                   Signature

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Thesis Committee Chair, Dennis Cartwright                   Signature

 

 

                                                                             

Date

 

 

 

Department of Education Chair:

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Chair, Dennis Cartwright                                               Signature

 

                                                                             

Date

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to collect Idaho elementary and middle level teacher opinions toward state standards and standards-based testing practices. The study specifically looked at opinions of how student learning is affected and differences in opinions by number of years of teaching experience. Data indicate that Idaho teachers appreciate standards for the potential they have in curriculum alignment and providing a framework for teaching. However, teachers are frustrated by the content and amount of information in standards. Teacher opinions of testing seem to be much more one-sided, with most indicating that it is an inaccurate representation of student learning, negatively impacts learning, and is a detriment to schools students of lower SES. Teachers also indicated they believe teaching was a more rewarding occupation before the statewide testing began.

 

           

             

 

           

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………. vii

Chapter I: The Problem…………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Statement of the Problem and Purpose…………………………………………………………… 12

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

Chapter II: Review of the Literature                                                                                                                                           Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

The Benefits of Standards and Standards-based Testing……………………………………. 17

Detriment to Student Learning………………………………………………………………………. 22

Skewed Data……………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

Teacher Opinions………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

Chapter III: Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………………. 40

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40

Instrument………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Analysis of the Data……………………………………………………………………………………. 49

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

Chapter IV: Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………………………………… 52

Teacher Attitudes Toward Standards………………………………………………….. 55

I have read and understand the standards………………………………………………………………….. 56

I have read and understand the standards for my subject/grade level………………………………. 57

Teacher Attitudes Toward Testing……………………………………………………… 58

The testing is an effective measurement of student learning……………………………………………. 59

The testing is an effective measurement of student learning……………………………………………. 60

Findings from Open-Ended Questions……………………………………………………………. 68

Standards………………………………………………………………………………………. 68

Standards-based Testing………………………………………………………………….. 73

Differences by Level of Experience…………………………………………………….. 80

Inferential Statistics…………………………………………………………………………………….. 82

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85

Chapter V:  Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………….. 86

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………. 89

Recommendations for Practice……………………………………………………………………… 91

Recommendations for Future Study………………………………………………………………. 92

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 101

Weighted Means and Scoring…………………………………………………………………….. 101

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 107

Survey Cover Letter…………………………………………………………………………………. 107

Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 109

Survey (Simple typed version of online survey from Survey Monkey):………………… 109

 

List of Tables

Table 1: Teacher Opinions of Standards…………………………………………………………. 56

Table 2: Weighted Mean of Teacher Opinions Toward Standards………………………. 58

Table 3: Teacher Opinions of Testing…………………………………………………………….. 59

Table 4: Weighted Means of teacher opinions toward testing……………………………… 60

Table 5: Teacher Opinions of Standards and Student Learning……………………………. 64

Table 6: Weighted Means of Standards and Student Learning…………………………….. 64

Table 7: Teacher Opinions of Testing and Student Learning……………………………….. 65

Table 8: Weighted Means of Testing and Student Learning………………………………… 67

Table 9: Comparison By Years of Experience, standards…………………………………… 82

Table 10: Opinions By Years of  Experience, Testing……………………………………….. 84

 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Size of District (Number of Elementary Schools)                                  54      

Figure 2: Number of Years of Teaching Experience                                             55

Chapter I: The Problem

Introduction

Recent movements in education in the United States have changed the way students, teachers and schools are assessed. Traditionally standards and assessments took place in the classroom, at a building level or by district, but now federally mandated state assessments are required. Scholars in the field of education have given this change a mixed review ranging from enthusiastic praise to outraged criticisms, with most sitting somewhere in between, finding both positives and negatives to the changes and warning of the limitations to any test. One such reflection was discussed by a respected voice in Education.

Only on “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?” can people rise to the top by rote memorization and answers to multiple-choice questions. The FINAL ANSWER to improving education is more than memorizing facts for a multiple-choice test. Children today need critical thinking skills, creativity, perseverance, and integrity – qualities not measured on a standardized test…public school parents value individual talents and contributions, and know that ‘one-size-fits-all’ tests that take 90 minutes do not take the full measure of a child. We know, for example, that Albert Einstein – who was dyslexic – did not perform well on tests as a child – yet had one of the best minds in our history.”-Dr. Paul Houston, executive director, American Association of School Administrators (“High Stakes Testing,” n.d.)

Words like Houston’s drive home some possible problems with the high stakes standards-based testing programs that have become rooted in public education in the United States, as a result of the recent legislation. Others further warn against the danger of using test scores to make important decisions such as school funding, student and teacher labeling, and high school graduation (Rogosa, 2005; Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Airasian,1998; Wang, Beckett, & Brown, 2006).
           Although many professionals in the field have written reports on the topic and studies have looked to find the effects of testing programs, few document the opinions of teachers. As they are the professionals who spend their time implementing and experiencing the direct affect of the programs, these studies are very important.                                                       
                                              Background of the Problem
             In historical research of educational reform related to testing, Gallagher (2003) found that the widespread use of standardized testing may be traced back to the cold war. In an attempt to increase the United States’ competitive edge, the government began to compare performance based upon test scores with those of other nations. A series of controversial educational reforms related to the frenzy to be competitive on the global playing field lead up to what may be considered the next milestone in America’s testing history, a report entitled, A Nation At Risk.
             In the document, released in the nineteen-eighties, the authors accounted what was called “mediocrity” in the public education system. A series of recommendations were made to the public, one of which was an implementation of rigorous standards at a national level (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This type of standards reform was attempted several times in a variety of formats and was utilized in some states, but standards-based testing was not widely accepted in the U.S. until nearly twenty years later.

In the early nineties a Gallup poll (Educational Research  Service, 1992) gathered data from the general public, school principals, and teachers on the matter of standards and standards-based testing. The study found that the public was strongly in favor of national curriculum, standards, and testing. Teachers and principals, on the other hand, opposed national curriculum and were divided about whether standards and national testing were appropriate. The findings may be seen as an explanation of the ensuing controversy that surrounded the next major change in education, the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
                The act aimed to close the perceived “performance gap” through standards-based testing. The legislation required states to create testing programs to document school progress, among other changes (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). Two years after the implementation of No Child Left Behind, a study similar to the 1991 Gallup poll was conducted (Business Roundtable, 2003). The study found that the public still believed the changes to be important and teachers were still not in full support of changes. Although the public did support standards-based testing they preferred a mix with teacher evaluation and limits to testing.
               The current situation in the nation’s schools varies to some extent, as states have taken different stances on exactly how standards-based testing was implemented. Some states have high stakes punitive or rewards systems. In Idaho, the Idaho Reading Inventory (IRI) and Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) serve the purpose of monitoring school progress based upon the teaching of the Idaho State Standards (Idaho State Board of Education, 2006). The administrative code, as translated for Idaho, includes governing the test and setting targets for adequate yearly progress and high school graduation rates. It also mandates repercussions for not meeting adequate yearly progress, as well as merit for scoring in the top 5% and 10% of all schools. Standards and standards-based testing in the age of No Child Left Behind are areas not often studied. Additionally, research on teacher opinions of Idaho’s standards-based accountability system does not yet exist at the time of this research. This lacuna within the literature begs for a closer look into the policy as it is carried out in Idaho. The study will research teacher attitudes toward state standards and standards-based testing in an attempt to discover whether or not teachers perceive standards and testing to have a positive affect on student learning, the way schools are organized, and their own job satisfaction.
            Previous research has found that student learning may be negatively affected by standards and testing programs, which encourage controlling teaching strategies (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner & Kauffman, 1982;  Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett,1990). Other research points to more inadvertent types of problems that affect student learning, such as cutting of non-core subject time, a disproportionately low distribution of excellent teachers in low performing schools, and unanticipated affects on special student populations (Tuerk, 2005, Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Pipho, 2000).

               Reliability and validity of standards-based tests are also found to be questionable in some studies because of problems like unethical practices, statistical error, and inability to control for variables like socioeconomic status. Important decisions are often made with this flawed data. Finally, previous research has found that teachers are often forced to stray from their philosophies of learning in order to accommodate testing over standards that most don’t feel is effective (Abrams et al., 2003; Moore, 1994; Mulvenon et al., 2005).

Statement of the Problem and Purpose

According to Deci et al., Grolnick and Ryan, as well as Hanson, standards-based testing appears to have some unintended negative consequences on student learning and teachers’ experiences in the classroom, while some experts in the field of education indicate the benefits of standards-based testing programs. This study was designed to investigate elementary and middle level teacher opinions toward state standards and standards-based testing, in Idaho. Through testing opinions of these, a secondary purpose of the study was to determine the impact of state standards through testing not only on teachers’ overall perceptions of standards and standards-based testing, but also their perceptions of the way these have impacted student learning. Further, a third purpose of the study was to compare teacher opinions of standards-based testing, based upon number of years of teaching experience.
                                                           Research Questions

• 1. What are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards and
  standards-based testing?
• a. Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards and standards-based testing related to number of years of teaching experience?

2. What is the impact of state standards and standards-based testing on elementary

           and middle level teachers’ perceptions of student learning?

• a. Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward the impact

of state standards and standards-based testing on student learning related to number of years of teaching experience?

Significance:

This study has significance in its attempt to discover Idaho elementary and middle level teacher opinions toward standards and standards-based testing as well as whether or not they are consistent with those studied in previous research. It is also significant as part of a larger picture of state educational policy making, based upon federal mandates as a result of the No Child Left Behind act. It is the hope of the researcher that the study is significant in providing a unified voice for Idaho teachers to those policy makers who may be willing to listen. The study will also be significant in providing a basis for future teacher opinion research on the topic of standards-based testing, especially in the state of Idaho.

                                          Delimitations

The following were delimiting factors for this study:

The study was restricted to a year, and data limited to that which could be collected and analyzed within less than a year. The study also had to be constrained to data collection from elementary and middle level teachers in Southwest Idaho. Further, the study may not test all aspects of teacher opinions because of the short amount of time teachers have to complete the  survey. Finally, the study was limited to a convenience sample in survey format in order to complete data collection of the desired population within the time allotted.

Limitations

The following were limiting factors for this study:

The integrity of survey respondents’ answers is a possible limitation, especially because of the large sample size and lengthiness of the survey. Another limitation related to the survey is the possible low inter-item reliability among survey items. Two survey items seemed to test teacher knowledge of standards-based testing, rather than opinions, which may have had an adverse affect on their total score. The scores were used in comparing the group of new teachers to the group of experienced teachers, so the findings from this section may be of limited validity.

Another limitation was in survey distribution. Those schools without public email addresses were given hard copies of the teacher cover letter with information for reaching the online survey. They were intended to be passed out to teacher mailboxes by building administrators and this may not have occurred. Of the four districts with unavailable elementary teacher emails, nearly 400 print copy surveys were distributed and it is uncertain how many reached the hands of teachers.

Although the sample was large for the small region, the results are limited by the low percentage of responses (43%). Finally, as the study was not comprised of a random sampling, the results of the survey and especially the results of the open ended response portion may represent the opinions of  those teachers with the strongest opinions on both ends of the spectrum, as most comments appeared to be very opinionated.

Definitions

ISAT (Idaho Standards and Achievement Test) – The Idaho State Department of Education (2003) defines this term as, “a standardized test aligned with Idaho State Achievement Standards designed to evaluate student achievement in the areas of reading, writing and math. It is given to students in grades 2-9 and High School.”

IRI (Idaho Reading Inventory) – The Idaho State Department of Education (2003) defines this test as, “A statewide screener to indicate reading readiness and proficiency in skills associated with reading. Given K-3, three times per year.”

IEP (Individualized Education Plan) – The Idaho State Department of Education (2003) describes this as “A plan stating students’ current education goals, and sometimes social goals.”  Students receive IEP plans based upon parent or school personnel recommendation surrounding special needs.

Summary

Chapter I has introduced the problem and presented the framework of the study through exploring the history of standards-based testing. In this chapter, the research questions were also introduced and parameters of the study were stated. Some of the unanticipated limitations were discussed, as well as definitions important to understanding terminology used in teachers’ comments.

In Chapter II the literature related to standards-based testing is presented. Previous research has found that student learning may be positively or negatively affected by standards (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al., 1982;  Abrams et al., 2003; Flink, et al., 1990).

Chapter III reviews the research questions and provides information about the studies research methodology. The demographics of the sample of districts within the six counties selected in Southwest Idaho are extensively reviewed. Chapter III also provides information about the exact procedures of the study including details about the survey instrument and analysis of data, completed on Microsoft Excel.

The finings of the study are presented in Chapter IV. The study found mixed opinions of standards, with teachers asserting an appreciation for the possibility of standards in their comments and discussing the problems they find in the actual format. Teacher opinions of testing were much more negative.

In Chapter V some conclusions about the research were discussed, including the need for teacher involvement in policy making. Recommendations for further research are also presented in this chapter.

Chapter II: Review of the Literature                                                                                                                                           Introduction

Much research has been done on standards and standardized testing to determine the effectiveness of learning outcomes, the effectiveness of the tests themselves, as well as a select few testing the opinions of teachers in order to determine success. Researchers suggest both positive as well as negative findings in the area of standardized testing, also called standards-based testing in the case of standards use. Some researchers point out the importance of standards and standards-based testing for the value it holds in creating congruence and equity in education and accountability for students, teachers, districts, and states (Frary et al., 1993; Goertz, 2001; Glatthorn & Fontana, 2000). Another side of the research findings suggests some problems associated with standards and standards-based testing. One such problem is a possible negative affect on student learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990; Moore,1994). In testing, unanticipated confounding variables, which create unreliable test outcomes and problems with standards that are not congruent to tests create serious validity problems (Koretz, 2005; Wang et al., 2006; Kher-Duriabhji, Lacina-Gifford, Carter, & Jones, 1995). Finally, some describe the issue of negative teacher feelings toward standardized or standards-based testing practices and the implications of these attitudes, as well as exploring the differences by number of years of teaching experience (Hanson, 2006,  Abrams et al., 2003; Shepard & Dougherty, 1991)

The Benefits of Standards and Standards-based Testing

Research like that by Frary et al. (1993) determined discrepancies in teacher use of test scores and grading. Only 8% of secondary teachers reported using criterion referenced testing and 46% reported the use of percent-correct scores with domain-referenced interpretation, both of which the researchers deemed unsound practices. The researchers suggested that some action needed to be taken in order to improve inaccurate grading systems such as these. Standards-based testing was thought to be a possible direct resolution to creating a viable system for forming expectations and measurement of those expectations for classroom, school, district, state, and even national academic achievement (Gallagher, 2003).

In an analysis of the educational systems in Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, Japan, and the United States, the United States was found to be lagging behind other countries (McAdams, 1993). After comparison, McAdams claimed curriculum in the U.S. to be a “hodge podge” compared to other countries. He also addressed the lack of a national exam responsible for parents wanting their children to have “easier teachers” for better grades, often creating grade inflation. Many studies have been designed to discover exactly how standards and standards-based testing can be best used and the types of benefits they produce for public school systems.

In a multi-year, case study of ten states, information was gathered on the many aspects of state accountability standards and standards-based tests (Goertz, 2001). The study found that in performance based accountability systems there were benefits like data for decision making. Another benefit was of having test data was an ability to focus attention on student outcomes and progress. In multiple states, there was an increased focus on literacy content in curriculum and identification of problems in this area. The research also found that although most of the districts in the study held principals and students more accountable for progress than teachers, there was a great focus on teacher professional development and emphasis on delivery of instruction.

In another case study of the use of standards, some factors were studied that were found by teachers to create successful classroom environments and learning outcomes. Glatthorn and Fontana (2000) identified characteristics, which were thought to be  possible reasons for the success. One characteristic, immediately evident to the researchers was the incorporation of hundreds of teachers to the previous standards committee made up of professional organizations, universities, and the state department of education. The researchers felt this grass-roots type movement was efficient in creating support from the community of teachers. Another factor identified was the incorporation of classroom work samples, videotapes, and narrative to each standard. This was thought to help create a better sense of exactly what types of skills and learning should be associated with the standards. The final variable observed was the use of professional development opportunities tied to the standards. Specifically, these included teacher study groups with the task of intensive study of a specific standard, examination of the teacher’s own classroom practices in conjunction with the standard, and reflection on possible use of the standard and their own growth.

Another study found some similar variables that helped lay the type of groundwork that ensured the most successful integration of standards in district settings (Dutro, Fisk, Koch, Roop, & Wixson, 2002). The descriptive study explored the differences in several districts. One of the important aspects recognized as significant in the effective use of standards was the incorporation of teacher leaders, who trained their peers in effective use of the standards. In a similarly successful district, the district leaders supported teachers in encouraging and providing state training activities. In all districts where effective incorporation of standards was achieved, the researchers found professional development opportunities surrounding the standards to be critical. Despite the expense it may incur, the researchers cited how worthwhile the change was to the overall success.

Beyond the successful incorporation of standards into district curriculum, one study specifically looked at how best to utilize the standards in the classroom (Airasian & Miranda, 2002). The study found that the standards in the state of study were flexible enough to create lessons that fit into all of the various levels of Blooms taxonomy. The study deciphered the importance of focusing on the standards and the learning taxonomy of lessons rather than “teaching to the test.”

In a study more specific to utilization of testing, Crocker (2003) studied variables that ensure a positive outcome in “external assessment” in what the researcher called “A new era of teaching” (p. 157). The first important variable identified was content knowledge. The research also identified accurate information on assessment and accountability, open-mindedness toward external assessment of their students’ learning, and practice in classroom skills related to external assessment as traits of teachers. Finally, Crocker found a “good moral compass” in test preparation practices and preparation for collaboration in assessment development as the final variable in the list of important qualities of teachers.

One argument against standards-based testing programs is anxiety that it is thought to create for students, leading to unreliable results on the test and stressful learning environments (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). On the contrary, however, one study found that there was not a significant difference in the test scores of those students who were confident in testing and those who were not. The study found less than 2% unique variance in achievement scores explained by variables like math and reading self-efficacy, or confidence in ability on subject tests.

Carnoy and Loeb (2002) tested the results of states with strong built in accountability programs. The results were mixed in the positive and negative effects of these testing programs, but the specific effect on the student math scores in the states was profound. Of the schools in the sample, a large gain was seen in the math scores of eighth grade students. The study also incorporated the variable of student race and found that this positive increase in math performance was seen for all students, which was consistent with the researcher’s hypothesis on the subject. The difference for subjects other than math was not significant, but another study narrowed in on Language achievement.

An opinion research study with teachers of writing skills (K-12) in Washington state tested the perceived benefits of the state’s standards-based test and it’s extended response portion, called the WASL (Stetcher, Chun & Barron, 2004). In the study, close to 70% of teachers indicated that they felt the WASL contributed either a moderate amount or great deal in improving instruction and student learning. One half of teachers in this study reported that they increased their emphasis on teaching effective writing for different intended audiences. Although teachers indicated that the multiple choice portion of the test was an inaccurate measurement of student learning, the research found many factors, which seemed to point to a highly beneficial standards-based testing program, in regard to student learning. Many of the other research studies on standards-based testing

seem to point to a much more negative conclusion in regards to current standards or standards-based testing practices.

Detriment to Student Learning

Airasian (1998) warned against accepting measurement driven instruction without understanding fully its complexity, limitations, and potential benefits. The study found that simply stating desired learning outcomes was not effective in assuring that knowledge and outcomes through instruction were achieved. Further, the researcher reflected that with existing standards resources, school organization, and teacher preparation that currently it is not reasonable to assume that application, critical thinking, analysis, and reasoning are available to most students in schools that utilize standards. In other words, higher ordered thinking skills, are often unable to be taught using standards. Various studies before Airasian’s attempted to discern what affect standards and standards-based testing have on learning.

One study found a relationship between performance standards and learning. Deci et al. (1982) compared two types of teaching in helping students complete puzzles. In one group teachers were required to teach to standards and felt pressure to complete more puzzles. In this group the teacher tended to be more controlling, gave three times as many directives, made three times as many “should” type statements, and generally solved the puzzles for the students in an effort to move more quickly. In the less structured group without standards, teachers served as a resource or guide and although the students put together less puzzles than the other group they assembled a significant amount more on their own.

Another study found a specific correlation, similar to Deci et al.’s findings. The research utilized three different learning conditions with varying degrees of performance standards for students in a reading assignment (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). In one condition called “non-directed” students were asked to read with the expectation of answering opinion type questions about the reading. In a situation with slightly more performance standards called “non controlling-directed,” students were told that they would be assessed through some simple questions and were assured that they would not be graded on their performance. Students were also told to read in whatever manner was best for them and that the goal was just to see “What children can remember from reading.” In the third condition called “controlling directed” students were aware of much clearer performance standards. The students in this third condition were told that they would be graded on their performance to see if they “were learning well” and that they should  work very hard.

 Grolnick and Ryan (1987) found that those students who experienced the controlling directed condition had better recall on a test of that type, which may be comparable to a multiple choice type test. Alternatively, in little more than a week, testing was repeated and students in the two less directed conditions had better recall than those in the more directed group with those in the non-directed group performing the best. The researchers discussed the importance of autonomy in learning and how development may be negatively affected by controlling teaching strategies .

Later research of a similar purpose replicated Grolnick and Ryan’s results. Flink et al. (1990) found performance was impaired with the use of standards because teachers felt pressured to meet the standards. Similar to previous research, teachers who were pressured by standards used controlling teaching strategies and gave less choice options to students (when compared with those not assigned standards). Although teachers were given no direction as to how they should teach, they exuded nervous types of behavior and in turn students displayed negative behaviors. A positive correlation was found between these specific “negative” teaching strategies and the use of standards. Again, the researchers deemed performance goals or standards to create more controlling teaching environments. The difference they found was as simple as the change in thinking of teachers and students when oriented toward performance goals as opposed to learning goals. This shift was thought to increase extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation along with creating stress.

Another study tested students and found some seemingly contrary results. It was found that fifth grade students in one district actually enjoyed testing (Mulvenon et al., 2005). The efficacy of this statement becomes convoluted, however, when reading that particular question that addressed this. The motive behind the responses to the question were convoluted, as it was stated “I like testing week because we have less homework and less instruction in the class” and 51% indicated the category “A lot/ all the time” (p. 482). Nevertheless, the same survey revealed that 77% percent of students are anxious about how they will do on the test at least some of the time and 77% of students also felt the test was a good measure of “how much I know.” The researcher addressed the possible problems with creating an anxious learning environment or harmed self concept as a result of a low test score. The survey question in which students indicated less time was spent on class instruction during testing brings us to another issue related to testing practices in some states that is seen to negatively impact student learning.

Neill (2003) found that teachers are often guided to focus on test preparation, rather than what they consider “real learning.”  The study also discussed that the type of test coaching, dubbed “drill and kill” represents the lowest level of learning, in the author’s opinion. Furthermore, the researcher used educational theory to claim this lower ordered learning should not be considered real learning at all. A specific example of this may be identified in some of the first independent research on recently mandated state testing, by an agency outside of the government. The study found a similar problem in aligning curriculum to closely to the test. Surprisingly, it was in regard to student reading proficiency (Olson, 2006). The research found that even though schools are investing a great deal of time on reading and math in preparation for state tests, reading skills have actually declined significantly. The research pointed to the over use of short passages, which simulate the test. In effect, they discovered that sustained reading is not adequately practiced.

Issues with standards-based curriculum in math were identified by parents in a study of parent opinions of “new math” curriculum in the age of standards-based reform (Remillard & Jackson, 2006). Parents expressed issues with the reform; both concern with the large amount of reading involved in math problems and the pace many deemed to be “too fast for their children” were discussed. The researchers speculated that a major issue that may be blamed for parental discontent with standards is the lack of parent involvement in forming standards. The research also raises the importance of parent cooperation in student learning, because of the discussed positive correlation between parent interest in learning and success in school.

With an increased focus on those subjects tested, namely reading, writing, and math, important curriculum, such as science, art, social studies, and music is being eliminated in many schools (Neill, 2003). Abrams et al. (2003) found that about 60% of teachers surveyed reflected that test score improvement was so important to administration in their districts that they felt they had little time to teach anything not on the test. These feelings the teachers had were not an isolated case, as many research studies replicated similar results.

In a survey of classroom teachers on the subject of perceived changes in total instructional time there was a noted decrease in instructional time in the arts by teachers (Zastrow & Janc, 2004). In elementary schools there were major decreases in instructional time in civics, geography, and social studies. Finally, instructional time decreased in foreign languages as well as professional development for teachers in all  liberal arts subjects, such as music, art, drama, and social sciences.

A case study of a classroom in rural Mississippi revealed that the teacher was pressured to spend over half of all classroom instruction preparing students to take the high stakes state test (Lamb, 2007). The teacher discussed teachers in the school feeling obligation to “forgo certain engaging teaching strategies for methods not correlated with their philosophy of effective mathematics instruction” (p. 41). The author of the action research study discussed how distressing the experience could be. One of the largest problems for the researcher was going against his educational philosophy and finding that learning was less successful for students.

One study narrowed in specifically on social studies education. The study was designed to test the effects of a statewide, standards-based testing program (Burroughs, Groce & Webeck, 2005). In the study, elementary through high school teachers were surveyed, interviewed through group focus interviews, and individually interviewed. The population was made up of North Carolina teachers in districts with strictly language and math testing. The researchers discovered that the majority of elementary teachers claimed they taught social studies on a “limited basis” of about 30 minutes per week. Furthermore, teachers reported that they spent less time on social studies in order to make more time for tested subjects. Interestingly, teachers in the study were said to have expressed “frustration and concern” about the lack of instructional time for social studies. Despite the fact that social studies is not tested in most states, the teachers in the study were comfortable with it being neglected in testing programs. The teachers felt that although being left out of No Child Left Behind was clearly negative in the amount of time dedicated to social studies, they also thought being included might be worse. They responded that it would negatively affect students’ social studies education, and the students’ well being in general, and their own experience, as teachers.

Another detriment to student learning is the relationship that has been found between some standards-based testing programs and discrimination against minority and poverty students. Another area of study is the great difficulties presented to other populations like special education students.  Finally, issues are seen for those students who are learning English as a second Language in other research.

Tuerk’s (2005) study used data for free and reduced lunches from Virginia public schools to determine whether or not highly qualified teachers were evenly distributed in schools of varying levels of socioeconomic standing. The researchers predicted that access would not be equivalent to schools in high poverty communities. They presumed this because of high stakes testing practices in the state, which they felt discouraged teachers from working at schools where it may be impossible to increase test scores of all students. The research found a negative relationship in this regard. The higher the poverty level, the less qualified teachers were available to students. The researchers point out a strong tie between availability of resources such as qualified teachers and student achievement on standardized tests. Thus, there was no surprise that a second aspect of the study found that highly qualified teachers had a significant impact on performance on high stakes standardized tests. The researchers pointed out a compounded negative impact on students in schools with a high numbers of students in poverty.

This was quite similar to the study and findings by Wheelan and Kesselring (2005). The researchers found that the results of the study indicated that student achievement on standardized tests was related to poverty level, just as found by Tuerk. Similarly, Herman, Abedi,, and Golan (1994)  found a negative impact upon low socioeconomic status students. This study, carried out in conjunction with the United States Department of Education looked to determine what affects standardized testing has on schools. Those classrooms with more students of low socioeconomic status were found to have more pressure to increase test scores and therefore teachers reported that they were forced to spend more time attending to testing and less time on science, art, and what they considered “thinking skills.”

Another study analyzed data from the entire nation between states that employ high stakes testing policies and those that do not (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). The research determined that high stakes testing policies have a negative impact on not only students of low socioeconomic backgrounds, but also on students from racial minority groups. The findings pointed to several states as examples, one of which was Arizona. There, 97% of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans failed the high stakes graduation exam. In another example given by the researchers, Louisiana had such high failure rates among poor and minority students after a second administration that requests were made for the office of civil rights to investigate. These are just two states mentioned by the researchers where testing had a negative effect on minorities.

Similar issues were echoed by Pipho (2000), who discussed possible reasons for negative impact of standards and standards-based testing on minority students. What was thought as a success story in Texas on its Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, was actually found to create problems for minority students in the state. Although test scores for black and Hispanic students rose, so too, did drop out rates. Pipho found that the data supports the contention that the high stakes, standards-based test was likely responsible for the increased number of minorities choosing to drop out of school.

In research financed by the publication Education Week (2004), in conjunction with a professional research firm, 800 special education and general classroom teachers were surveyed with items regarding testing practices in their states and their opinions of those practices. The study speculates that the expectation that special education students should meet the same requirements on a standards-based test is unrealistic for these students. 80% of the teachers surveyed agreed that special education students should have a separate set of academic standards. Furthermore, the study found that in many states teachers are prohibited from making any special “modifications” for special education students when taking the state test because there is concern that this could lead to unfair practices.
              Wang et al. (2006) looked for patterns within the body of research on this topic and came to a conclusion in regard to the matter of holding all students to the same standards, regardless of extenuating circumstances. The researchers determined that stipulations, which require the same set of high standards “fail to acknowledge the diversity and pluralism embodied in our genes and embraced in our society” (p. 324).

This sentiment was echoed in a study published a year earlier, which compared the use of curricular standards in classrooms of all hearing impaired students, classrooms with all hearing students, and classrooms with both hearing and non-hearing students (Cawthon, 2005). The study was based upon teachers’ views on standards as indicated by a questionnaire. The research found that teachers in both hearing and non-hearing classrooms had about average to slightly positive scores for their opinions on standards. Those teachers from mixed classrooms however had a more negative outlook toward standards. The researcher discussed the problem of expecting a group of students with very differing abilities to be held to precisely the same standards.

Rex (2003) researched what was termed in the research as “inclusivity” in the classroom, meaning the ability of the teacher to effectively interact, include, and create positive experiences for and from unique students, such as the gifted, learning disabled, or English Language learners. The problem found in the study was that the stress felt by the teachers to rise to the occasion of high stakes testing left them unable to account for special needs of students, especially those “at risk.” The researcher speculated that based upon the findings, many of these students would likely be even more at risk to “disappear” from classrooms in America.

Skewed Data

In using standards and standardized testing to evaluate teacher and school accountability it becomes important to compare both the research literature on actual teacher practices to assess whether methods used result in a valid test scores as well as how reliable those scores are. A research report by Koretz (2005) discussed the issue of test score validity, specifically in the use of high stakes testing. The report stated that test score gains in high stakes testing should not be “taken at face value.” The researcher found that with the introduction of new tests, there was an irregular pattern, with a low mean at the start, which went up and down in a saw tooth pattern with each administration of the test. This type of pattern occurred with the use of high stakes tests, despite the stakes tied to them. The researcher also cited large-scale test score inflation as a problem that leads those interpreting the scores to inaccurately believe that gains are made in areas were they may not be and possibly masking those areas, where gains were actually made.

A study on pre-service teachers’ views toward standardized testing practices revealed their ideas about appropriate uses of standardized testing practices in daily classroom activates (Kher-Duriabhji et al., 1995). Participants were to select whether or not certain practices were ethical, unethical, or highly unethical. In the study, pre-service teachers found the idea of training students in test taking strategies and increasing student and parent motivation were ethical practices. On the other hand, the pre-service teachers believed that practices such as developing curriculum that revolves around the test, using commercially bought score boosting activities, or preparing objectives based on test terms were considered either unethical or highly unethical. Interestingly, many teachers claim to do these things considered unethical by pre-service teachers and in many cases they are even taking more drastic measures to increase test scores. The researchers reflected on the problem of test score validity, with such practices occurring.
               In a more obvious abuse of ethics, in the results from another study it was found that as many as half of the teachers surveyed were aware of colleagues who engaged in cheating behaviors to improve students’ test scores (Moore, 1994). Urdan and Paris (1994) also found that teachers were likely to teach material that they thought would be on the test. The researchers determined that a main reason that teachers would engage in practices that would artificially inflate test scores on tests that they “don’t believe to be valid” is pressure to have students perform well on tests. The researchers believed that, unexpectedly, more experienced teachers were more likely to engage in these “cheating” types of behaviors than were less experienced teachers. A possible reason, hypothesized to explain unethical behavior was the immense pressure associated with high stakes testing, moreover, tests with punitive repercussions.
            In a study comparing teachers from states with high stakes and low stakes testing systems major differences were found (Abrams et al., 2003). More teachers from states that utilized high stakes testing programs (63%) reported cheating behaviors, such as engaging in regular teaching using state developed or commercially developed specific test preparation materials, not intended for classroom use. This may be compared to the 19% who used similar materials from schools in states with low stakes testing. Consistent with this, 44% of teachers in high stakes testing states used test questions and information during teaching that were also not intended for use in classroom instruction. As with previous research, the issue of invalid test scores was again apparent.

Another issue with test score validity was a misalignment of the test to the standards, which are supposed to be the basis of the test. Goertz (2001) noted problems in case study research of ten states. The first problem identified was the misalignment of state and Title I accountability policies within states. The researcher also noted the poor alignment between the standards and the assessment intended to measure the standards. The researcher found in some cases that this was to test changes and standards that had not been similarly updated, or the reverse of this. Further, some states were even guilty of using norm-referenced tests designed with skills determined at a national level, while the state standards did not reflect the same skill sets. The researcher found all these issues to be problematic in considering such test scores to be valid.

The problem of reliability is discussed specifically in research on state accountability programs (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). The researchers convey their concern for the possibility of a statistical phenomenon called regression toward the mean. In this situation all data is skewed in repeated testing as the spread of data narrows and moves closer to the mean. The researchers said that were this to take place, a major concern would be low-scoring students making the gains when this achievement is not necessarily taking place or drops in high achieving students’ scores, when knowledge did not in fact diminish.

In a slightly different slant on possible statistical errors, one study explored a problem in California’s schools in 2002 (Rogosa, 2005). The study looked at a problem with margin of error controversy that occurred in the state’s one  billion dollar reward system for their testing program. According to the media there, the system offered these rewards for academic improvements although with the large margin of error of the test $67.3 million of the awards were given to schools that scored within the margin of error.     

Rotberg (1995) warned years before the California debacle of the possible mathematical error and dangers of relying heavily on test score comparisons. Major problems found with test score comparisons were a lack of validity, a lack of ability of the results to control for changes in student populations, incentives or encouragement for certain students to not take or take the test, and consistency between the test and instructional program. Further, Rotberg discussed the flawed thinking in comparing test scores that may have reflected teaching to the test or excluding low performing students, rather than actual learning.

Teacher Opinions

 Many studies have determined that teachers do not believe standardized testing programs to be an accurate measure of student learning, source for determining teacher accountability, or method for evaluating district and state efforts (Abrams et al., 2003; Moore, 1995; Mulvenon et al., 2005). This becomes extremely important when it is considered that this is exactly what many states have set out to do with high stakes testing over state developed standards.

A study of 360 elementary level teachers (grades 3, 5, and 6) of 100 schools was conducted in 1991, ten years before the implementation became a national movement (Shepard & Dougherty, 1991). The researchers looked to study teacher opinions. It was found that teachers felt pressured to improve scores by administration and the media. The educators also claimed that their tendency to concentrate on basic skills was a direct result of the pressure they felt. Furthermore, they felt content suffered because of extensive test preparation. Finally, the researchers found that in open-ended teacher responses there was a tendency for an appreciation of the possible benefits, but that those positives were overshadowed by negative shortcomings

Another study was designed to research the “sense-making” during newly implemented state-mandated accountability programs in an effort to determine whether there were factors within certain schools that ensured a more positive transition (Louis, Febey, & Schroeder, 2005). The study used descriptive research from three schools and found that the school with teachers having the longest experience struggled with the legitimacy of creating the expected outcomes within their classrooms. The other two schools saw consistency issues with the implementation. At one, the teachers and administration found that the practices to be implemented were not consistent with their own philosophies, values, or norms. At the other, legitimacy was compromised as a lack of cohesiveness was identified between district and state goals. In the first two situations, teacher sense-making of the process stagnated due to inconsistencies and other problems, such as policy making.

Abrams et al. (2003) compared states that carried out high stakes standardized testing with states that carried out low stakes testing. The researchers asked questions about teacher, school, and student accountability in relation to the test. The overwhelming result from teachers in both types of schools indicated they were opposed to financial bonuses awarded based on test scores to teachers or administrators. Similarly, the results also indicated that the teachers felt school accreditation decisions or administrator and teacher evaluations based on test scores were inappropriate.

Decisions about student grade promotion or graduation based on test scores were also deemed to be improper by most teachers (Moore, 1994). Contradictory to these findings, was the result of the question about student accountability. The combined result of the two groups pointed toward the notion that teachers felt it acceptable to hold students accountable with test scores from standardized tests. There was a difference between groups, however, as the teachers from high-stakes testing environments made up 57% of those who indicated students should be held accountable with scores and those from low-stakes environments made up only 37%. Quite similarly, the surveys from teachers who overwhelmingly indicated that standardized test scores were not an accurate measure of learning, did use test scores in classroom decision-making, despite their opinions toward it.

Research based on surveys administered to teachers at reading conferences (Urdan & Paris, 1994) revealed results similar to Moore’s. The teachers in the study indicated that they did not believe standardized test scores were a reflection of learning, however they engaged in practices, which utilized this data for educational use. When comparisons of teachers based upon experience were analyzed, the research found that more experienced teachers were more likely to instruct their students in material that would likely be on the test. The researchers conjectured that this may be due to their longer exposure to the important decisions being made for students based upon standardized test scores.

Another study resulted in similar findings from a study comparing practicing teachers to preservice teachers (Green, 1992). The majority of the practicing teachers disagreed with the statement “standardized tests serve a useful purpose” and disagreed with tests determining teacher salaries, Preservice teachers, on the other hand, had views inconsistent with the teachers in these areas. In another between groups design, adult education teacher opinions of use of tests and test scores were compared with elementary education teachers (Gellman, Guarino, & Witte, 2001). The study resulted in findings that lead the researchers to conclude that the adult education teachers in the study had a slightly more positive outlook toward standardized testing than did the elementary teachers. The researchers speculated that this may have been due to adult education teachers being more accustomed to the type of tests used in the research, than their elementary education counterparts.
            An aspect concerning to researcher, about teacher opinion studies related to standards and testing is what they imply or directly tells us about school climate and teacher career satisfaction (Abrams et al., 2003). School morale was deemed to be “low” by about half of the teachers surveyed. Further, school climate indicated by teachers was negatively correlated to the level of pressure felt by the teacher to raise test scores. Of those teachers who stated pressure existed, 41% were from high stakes testing states and the same percentage also stated that they had little time to teach anything not on the test. Contrasting this result, only 18% of those teachers from states with low stakes testing felt pressure in the same manner. Finally, 63% of those teachers from low stakes environments and 76% from high stakes environments were found to be teaching in ways that contradicted their educational philosophies in order to accommodate the state testing program.

The findings of Abrams et al. were consistent with Moore’s study (1994) of teacher opinions toward testing, in which he discovered that the majority of teachers surveyed did not believe testing programs were of benefit in instruction or student learning. Further, the researcher found that teachers felt a significant amount of pressure to even use “any method available” to improve test scores and spend more class time preparing students for testing because of pressure at their school or in their district.

Another study explored overall school climate and faculty group development as compared to student performance on standardized tests. The results revealed that group development was at the lowest stages when test scores were low as well as the reverse for better test scores (Wheelan & Kesselring, 2005). Although the researchers drew conclusions about better communication to help increase test scores it seems there may be more than one way to look at the study and the reverse is just as likely. The researchers speculated that perhaps stress from low-test scores may also result in stress in the school environment, preventing communication among teachers.
              The most extreme of teacher opinions toward standards or standards-based testing that may be observed in research is related to teacher “burnout.” (Hanson, 2006). In a study of teachers from 11 schools in an Arizona district a between groups study compared opinions of teachers in “high stakes classrooms” or those tested by the state with “low stakes classrooms” or those untested by the state. The study explored several aspects of teacher burnout as determined by the Maslach Burnout Inventory Model. The study found a significant difference (at the .01 level) between teachers in the high stakes classrooms and lows stakes classrooms. The mean score for emotional exhaustion was considerably higher than the low stakes teacher score.

Summary

Previous research has found that student learning is affected by standards and testing programs which encourage controlling teaching strategies (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al., 1982;  Abrams et al., 2003; Flink et al., 1990). Students’ learning is further harmed as some of the best teachers have been shown to be discouraged from working in districts of lower socioeconomics (Tuerk, 2005; Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Reliability and validity of tests are also questionable for many reasons including practices resulting from pressure teachers face to raise test scores (Koretz, 2005; Wang, et al., 2006; Kher-Duriabhji et al., 1995). Important decisions are often made with these flawed statistics. Finally, previous research has found that teachers are often forced to stray from their philosophies of learning in order to accommodate testing over standards that most don’t feel is effective (Abrams et al., 2003; Moore, 1994; Mulvenon et al, 2005).

Chapter III: Research Methodology

Introduction

This study was designed to investigate elementary and middle level teacher opinions toward state standards and standards-based testing in Idaho. Through testing opinions of these, a secondary purpose of the study was to determine the impact of state standards through testing not only on teachers’ overall perceptions of standards and standards-based testing, but also their perceptions of the way these have impacted student learning. Further, a third purpose of the study was to compare teacher opinions of standards-based testing, based upon number of years of teaching experience.

The study attempted to answer the following questions:

1. What are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards and
      standards-based testing?

• a. Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards

      and standards-based testing related to number of years of teaching

      experience?

2. What is the impact of state standards and standards-based testing on elementary

           and middle level teachers’ perceptions of student learning?

• a. Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward the impact

of state standards and standards-based testing on student learning related to number of years of teaching experience?

The research was guided by the following hypotheses:

• 1. Teacher opinions of standards and standards-based testing are negative.
• a. There is no difference between experienced and non-experienced teachers attitudes of standards and standards-based testing.
• 2. Teachers perceive student learning to be negatively affected by current state standards and standards-based testing practices.
• a. There is no difference between experienced and non-experienced teachers attitudes of the impact of standards and standards-based testing on student learning.

The study design was mixed-method. The source of quantitative data was comprised of results from an online survey. Qualitative data were collected through an optional free response or essay portion on the same survey. The purpose of the open ended portion of the survey was to triangulate quantitative data obtained in survey responses because it allowed teachers to express their opinions and elaborate on their answers.
                                                   Participants and Setting

Participants were a volunteer sample of elementary and middle level teachers in the Treasure Valley region of Idaho. This particular region consists of six counties in Southwest Idaho. The region was chosen due to the variety of settings and district sizes within it. The demographic data seem to represent much of the population and variety of demographics in the state of Idaho. The region includes three of the largest cities in the state, suburban regions exploding with growth, as well as some of the smallest rural towns in the state.

According to the last U.S census projections (2005), Ada County, was deemed to be the largest in population in Idaho at almost 350,000. The county had a median household income of about $49,000 and a growth rate at almost 15% between 2000 and 2005. The population of this county is somewhat homogenous with about 90% of the population described themselves as white, 5.3% described themselves as Latino or Hispanic, and not quite 2% described themselves as Asian.

Three districts reside within the county and two of them are very large. These bigger districts Boise Independent School District and Meridian Joint School District have rather paradoxical circumstances. The Boise School District supports an urban population of higher socioeconomic status that is aging, thus creating a downsizing in the number of schools. In 2005, the district last reported a percentage of students described as “low income” at approximately 35%, as determined by number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005). The district reported 34 elementary schools, eight   middle schools, and four high schools. The stated department records show the last data (2005) for student population to be 25,681 with 12% of those students qualifying for special education services and 7% with limited English proficiency (LEP).

Meridian Joint District is facing quite the opposite pattern as it supports a steadily growing suburban population, which neighbors the Boise area. Even with new schools consistently opening in the district, the student population (28,029) surpasses the supply of building space. Special education students made up 11% of the population and LEP, 5%. The percentage of students reported as being “low income” is a mere 20% in the district. Meridian Joint District last reported 30 elementary schools, seven  middle schools, and five high schools.

A much smaller district that is also rapidly growing within the county is Kuna Joint District. Last reported, this district was made up of four elementary schools, a middle school and a high school and 3,867 students. This area represents a somewhat rapidly changing population, historically a  rural farming area, it has more so become another suburban community of commuters to Boise. A number slightly higher than Meridians’ 20%, 30% of students in the district are reported as being “low income,” 10% were special education, and only 2% LEP.

 The whole of the second most populated county in the state and in the sample, Canyon County, is facing a growth quandary at an even greater rate than Ada County. The last census found the growth to be 25% between 2000 and 2005 (U.S. Census, 2000). The median household income in this region is considerably less than Ada County described, at $37,000. The estimated most current population available was 164,000. This county is also different from Ada County in it’s greater diversity in ethnicity as about 76% of people described themselves as being white, 20% as having Hispanic or Latino origin, and almost 1% described themselves as American Indian.

There are several school districts within the county of varying socioeconomic characteristics and sizes. The area is also characterized by a variety of settings ranging from rural to a small urban environment. Nampa School District is a district that supports one of the largest cities in Idaho. It is one that may be considered to have become that way almost overnight. Not unlike Meridian Joint District, the district faces a student population growing faster than schools can be built, with 13, 150 students last reported. It is quite dissimilar to any of the previously mentioned districts in its percentage of students reported as low income. This district finds that just over 50% of its students qualify for free and reduced lunch, 14% special education and 15% of students are LEP (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005). Currently, there are 13 elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high schools.

The two districts in the next biggest city within the county, Vallivue School District and Caldwell School District serve quite different students within the area. Vallivue School District that serves the outskirts of the community has six elementary schools, two middle level schools, and one high school, with a student population of 4,828. The district reports that about half of students are low income (58%) and 13% LEP. Alternatively, the sister district, Caldwell School District, serves those students in the heart of Caldwell with four elementary schools, two middle schools, and a high school and a slightly larger student population, at 5,971. The district has a much higher reported percentage of students who qualify as low income that is closer to 75% and 28% LEP students.

The remaining districts within the county are much smaller, serving rural farming communities and in some areas growing populations of new suburban growth. Wilder School District has one  elementary and one  middle-high school building. Of the 465 students in the district, most are reported as low income at 83%, more are LEP than any other district in the sample (37%), and 14% are special education students. Similarly a large percentage of students are LEP (34%) in 300 student Notus school district and 1,016 student Parma School district (30% LEP). Melba School District has 673 students and a smaller LEP percentage, with 16%. Notus, Parma,  and Melba, although all small like Wilder School District have about 20% less of their students recorded as low income, with each district at about 60% free and reduced lunch. Three elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school make up Middleton School District, which is just a bit larger in student population (2,623) when compared to the previous three districts. Middleton School District is also unlike the aforementioned with a lower population of low-income students at about 40% and a smaller percentage LEP (4%).

Boise County is very much a different story with a total population at just over 7,000 people spread out over several intermountain communities. The mean household income was at about $40,000, which is higher than Canyon County (U.S. Census, 2005). The population in Boise County is homogeneous and growing, with nearly 100% describing themselves as white and the last census reporting a 90% growth in the past fifteen years.

Thus, the three districts within the county, Horseshoe Bend School District, Basin School District, and Garden Valley School district have grown despite the fact that they remain small. Each district contains an elementary school and junior-senior high school. Basin School district made up of 467 students had about 37% who qualified as low income and one LEP student. Garden Valley School district has 281 students and just a bit higher number (45%) that qualify as low income, and no LEP students. Finally, Horseshoe Bend has 48% low income students and no LEP students, with a total student population of 314 (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005).                               

Payette County, although small, is still considerably larger in population than Boise County (22,000), but has a growth rate that is very small in comparison to the other counties described in the sample (U.S. Census, 2005). The median household income is about $35,000 with a population that is made up of more than 80% of people who identified themselves as white and 13% who identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino origin. The three districts Payette School District (1, 795 students), New Plymouth School District (919 students), and Fruitland School District (1,587 students) each district has one elementary, one middle, and one high school (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005). The percentage of the student population in poverty is just about 50% in all three and the LEP percentage is also similar in all three. Payette school district has 13% LEP, New Plymouth school district, 12%, and Fruitland School District has 10%.

Owyhee County’s population is about half the size of Payette County, with 11,000 people (US. Census, 2005). The demographics of this county are somewhat consistent with the second county in the sample in diversity of the population. About 3% of the people identify themselves as Native American, 20% of the people identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, and 73% identify themselves as white. The median household income in Owyhee County is about $30,000 dollars.

There are three school districts, Bruneau-Grandview Joint District, Marsing School District, and Homedale School District. Each has one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005). The poverty level of students is also in the mid 60% range for each. All three districts have about twice as many LEP students as the three districts discussed in Payette County. Of Bruneau-Grandview school district’s 468 students, 20% are LEP and similarly of 1, 313 students in Homedale, 20% are LEP. With a population right in between the previous two (791 students), Marsing school district has just a slightly higher 22% LEP students.

The final county, Gem County has just over 16,000 people (U.S. Census, 2005). This county has a median household income of $35,000. Gem County is a diverse population, in comparison with other counties. Seventy five percent identified themselves as white, 12% as black or African American, and 12% Hispanic. The county has a single school district, Emmett School District.

Emmett School District has three elementary schools, one junior high, one high school, and one junior high and high school combination. The total student population of the district is 3,042 students. The percentage of students qualifying as low income is about half (48%) of the total students and LEP students make up 4% (Idaho State Department of Education, 2005).

Overall, almost every district in the sample has about 10% special education students. The range of graduation percentages for the sample is 28 percentage points, with the highest 100% and the lowest 72%. Of the 21 school districts, 42% (9) made adequate yearly progress (testing goals) on the ISAT.

Surveys were emailed to all the teachers with public email addresses in previously described districts of the six counties selected, asking them to take on the online survey, hosted by Survey Monkey. For those teachers who were not accessible by email, cover letters with information on how to reach the online survey were delivered to building administrators for distributions.

 Instrument

The survey was piloted with nine students in a graduate program for teacher education students as well as by four elementary and five middle level teachers. The researcher attempted to ensure content validity through coding each survey question by variables addressed in the research questions. Reliability was established by checking that each research question was represented through evenly weighted positive and negative opinion statements in the Lickert type scale survey items and an even number of items per research question (See Appendix C). The data from the open-ended response portion on the survey was transcribed, reviewed, and coded according to research question. All data was anonymous and even the researcher was not able to connect participants with their survey results because of a special feature of the online survey program on Survey Monkey.

Procedures

The study was conducted during late winter/ early spring of 2007. Sequencing of the study was based upon survey development and piloting on Survey Monkey, creation of teacher email distribution lists, cover letter design, administration of the survey, and final reminders to participants before the survey closed. All data was obtained through the online survey on Survey Monkey, (surveymonkey.com) an online tool for developing surveys and data collection.

The first step in beginning the study was the careful development of the survey. Previous research and consultation with faculty experienced in research were tools used by the researcher to ensure valid statements on the survey. Validity was further addressed through coding of each survey item by research question. Part one of the survey was designed to compile descriptive statistics. The first question of the survey, which said, “I am a practicing classroom teacher” was linked by response to keep unintended respondents from reaching the survey and skewing data. Another question asked for the number of elementary schools in the district in order to help determine whether respondents from a variety of districts were well represented. Finally, teachers were asked how many years they had been teaching in order for the researcher to compare differences in attitude between less and more experienced teachers, as addressed in the research question.

Next the survey was piloted through nine graduate education students at the researcher’s college. The survey was further piloted using 13 teachers in some of the districts to be included in the study. After the survey was deemed ready for distribution to teachers, the next step was the creation of a cover letter and teacher email distribution lists.

A cover letter was created (see appendix B), which stated the purpose of the research and a request for teachers to fill out the survey. A link to the survey was provided within the cover letter. The only difference in the cover letter was the way it was addressed, for instance, those sent out to the Boise School District teachers said, “Dear Boise School District teachers.”     Once the cover letter was ready, email distribution lists were created according to district. Most districts made teacher emails available online through school websites. Two large districts and two smaller districts did not include this information online and paper copies of the survey were distributed to the schools. It should be noted that the number of surveys distributed to these schools was based upon an estimate of the number of teachers and, therefore, may not have been a fair representation of the number of faculty members within the school.

Analysis of the Data

Descriptive statistics were compiled on Survey Monkey and transferred to Microsoft Excel. Weights were assigned to each response in order to find mean responses. Weighted means were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and means as well as percentages of response to each statement on the survey were used to determine whether teachers were more positive or negative toward standards and testing (see appendix A).

T-test procedures were used in order to compare the responses from experienced teachers of 25 or more years of work in the field and newer teachers with one to five years experience. Responses from each individual survey were analyzed and scores were given for each section through coding of the Lickert-scale responses. The coding of the responses allowed survey scores to reflect each participant’s opinion through a high score (more favorable opinion of testing or standards) or lower score (less favorable opinion). The t-test procedure allowed each of these groups to be compared by response scores on Microsoft Excel. Full data and coding may be viewed in Appendix A.

Open-ended participant responses were reviewed and coded for analysis using Mile’s and Huberman’s (1994) matrix analysis of data. Data was coded first by standards and testing, level of years of experience, then by positive and negative responses for each. Then variables identified and counted for each comment type to further stratify data.

Summary

            The study attempted to determine teacher attitudes toward standards and standards-based testing, with special consideration toward a correlation with level of teaching experience. The study also examined teacher opinions toward the affects of standards and standards-based testing on student learning, again examining a possible correlation with the level of teacher experience. The research operated under the hypotheses that teachers feel negatively toward standards and standardized testing (Abrams et al., 2003; Moore, 1994; Mulvenon et al., 2005) and that they feel student learning is also negatively affected by standards and standardized testing (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al., 1982; Abrams et al., 2003; Flink et al., 1990). The sample consisted of elementary and middle level teachers in districts within six counties in southwest Idaho. The region studied was made up of diverse socioeconomic levels, district sizes, as well as suburban, rural, and urban settings. The reliability and validity of the survey was be analyzed by the researcher and piloted with students in a Masters program and with practicing elementary and middle level teachers. Data was collected from Survey Monkey and analyzed through Microsoft Excel. Data was triangulated through qualitative data from an open-ended portion of the survey, which allowed teachers to further elaborate on areas of interest or discuss topics not addressed in the survey. That data was analyzed using Miles’ and Huberman’s (1994) matrix analysis of data.

Chapter IV: Findings

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to discern teacher opinions toward state standards and standards-based testing. Through testing opinions of these, the more specific purpose of the study was not only to determine teacher perceptions of standards and testing, but also the impact of standards and testing on student learning. A final goal of the research was to find whether the number of years of classroom experience a teacher has influences his or her opinions of standards and testing.

The findings of the survey revealed an overall positive attitude toward the concept of standards in education, however dismay in the particular utilization of those standards was apparent in survey responses. The survey results indicated an overall negative response to the Idaho testing programs, with an area of slightly positive opinion in the use of testing as an informational tool. The open-ended portion of the survey further replicated the results from the quantitative items and provided some triangulation of survey results.

Descriptive Statistics

The sample of 442 survey respondents was made up of practicing classroom teachers within the Southwest region of Idaho. All other school staff who may have been incidentally included in mailing lists were filtered out with the first question of the survey (27 filtered out), leaving 415 participants who answered yes to the question “Are you a practicing classroom teacher?” 

 

 

Figure 1: Size of District as Determined by Number of Elementary Schools

 

The survey respondents were from a variety of district sizes, as determined by the number of elementary schools in the district (see fig. 1). The number of years of teaching experience of respondents was also highly varied and different levels of experience were well represented (see fig. 2).

The two research questions were addressed through all items on the survey. Many of those responses were further discussed and explained in the open-ended portion of the survey; those narrative responses will be addressed in the section to follow, titled Findings from Open-Ended Questions. The first portion of the survey related to the Idaho state standards. Respondents were asked to indicate the level they agreed or disagreed to several statements about the standards. The choices were presented in a 5-point Lickert Type Scale; ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with a neither agree nor disagree option in the middle.

Figure 2: Number of Years of Teaching Experience

 

Responses from survey items were compared by response percentages and weighted means. Means were determined by weighting responses. For positively framed survey items, such as “standards help me to provide a framework for teaching and ensure scope and sequence”, the most negative response, a one was represented by strongly disagree), a two the second most negative response (disagree), a three reflected a neutral stance of was an option for statements that were not applicable to the participant (neither agree nor disagree), a four reflected a positive response (agree), and a five the most positive (strongly agree). Negatively framed survey items, such as “standardized test scores do not accurately test student learning” had the same weight in regard to the most positive feelings about standards or testing as a 5, however because the statement was negative, the response for a five would be strongly disagree, four for disagree, three for neutral (neither agree nor disagree), two for agree, and one for strongly agree. Overall teachers were more positive about standards than they were about testing. The findings are addressed by research question, with a separate section for the qualitative findings.

 Question One: What are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards and standards-based testing?

Teacher Attitudes Toward Standards

Teacher opinions of standards, as conveyed through survey responses, were somewhat varied (see table 1 & 2 for standards data). The vast majority of teachers (88.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had read and understood the standards for their grade level and subjects, a mean of 4.179 further supported this. Teachers seemed to find the standards useful with 74.7% reporting that they used standards to provide a framework for teaching and ensure scope and sequence. Despite the strong response in favor to aspects of the Idaho State Standards, some problems were apparent through teacher responses.

Teachers were divided over whether the standards should be developed at district or building levels, rather than by the state. The weighted mean was close to the middle (3) at 2.91, with about 40% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to the statement and 39% agreeing or strongly agreeing. On other matters, teacher opinions were slightly clearer, as about 50% agreed or strongly agreed that the current standards were unrealistic because there are “far too many to be covered within the year.” Further, 56.4% agreed with the statement “The standards change too often.”

Table One: Teacher Opinions of Standards, Response Percentages

Opinions of standards	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither A/D	Agree	Strongly Agree
I have read and understand the standards	.8%	4%	7.1%	53.3%	34.6%
The standards change too often	1.7%	21%	51%	22.7%	3.7%
They help me provide a framework for teaching	3.4%	7.1%	14.7%	56.9%	17.8%
Standards are unrealistic because there are too many	2.8%	21.5%	27.2%	34.6%	5.9%
Standards better determined locally than at the state level	6.8%	32.9%	21.2%	24.4%	14.7%
I feel pressured to teach all the standards	1.7%	18.1%	18.1%	47.3%	14.7%
The pressure from standards negatively effects my teaching	5.4%	23.2%	23.8%	34%	16%
Teachers are less satisfied with their careers because of standards	3.1%	9.7%	25.9%	34.4%	27%

 

Table Two: Teacher Opinions Toward Standards, Weighted Mean Score

Average opinion of standards (* = negatively framed/reversed)	Weighted mean
I have read and understand the standards for my subject/grade level	m=4.18
The standards change too often*	m=2.95
They help me provide a framework for teaching	m=3.77
Standards are unrealistic because there are too many*	m=2.65
Standards better determined locally than at the state level*	m=2.91
I feel pressured to teach all the standards*	m=2.44
The pressure from standards negatively effects my teaching*	m=2.72
Teachers are less satisfied with their careers because of standards*	m=2.28

                When it came to the previously researched variable of stress related to the standards, 62% claimed to feel pressure to teach all of the concepts mandated in the standards, and a slightly less 47.6% found that the pressure they feel has had a negative affect on their quality of teaching. Consistent with Hanson (2006) and Abrams et al. (2003), teachers’ opinions of the pressure and stress associated with teaching all of the concepts in the standards and opinions concerning their perceptions of career satisfaction seem to have some correlation to one another. The questions related to stress/pressure and career satisfaction were both weighted negatively. Sixty-one percent agreed or strongly agreed that the movement toward standards has “lead many of the best teachers to become less satisfied in their careers”. This was the clearest response in regard to the questions about standards in general, with a mean of 2.281, which is clearly more negative in comparison with the means of other responses.

Teacher Attitudes Toward Testing

While many teachers really seemed to appreciate certain aspects of the standards, their responses to the statements about testing where much more negative (see tables 3 & 4 for testing data). A large portion of teachers expressed skepticism in the effectiveness of standardized tests to measure student learning, with 60.4% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to the statement “standardized tests are an effective measurement of student learning.”     Although this percentage may not seem large, the weighted mean, m= 2.27, is clearly a negative response. In response to a similar, but negatively framed statement about the accuracy of the tests in determining student learning, a larger percentage of 69.5% agreed or strongly agreed with the negative wording. The weighted mean for the item, however, reflected little discrepancy between the positively and negatively framed questions, at 2.186. This negativity toward test validity was consistent with previous research of teacher opinions (Abrams et al.; Moore, 1995; Mulvenon et al. 2005). From this reference point of most participants believing the test to be invalid, the results of most of the rest of the survey are to be expected.

Teachers cohesively disagreed with the use of standards-based testing as a measurement for teacher and school merit pay, with 94.2% marking disagree or strongly disagree and a weighted mean (m=1.35), which was the most negatively weighted mean of all of the survey data. Similarly, less than 24% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement about tests being important to keep teachers accountable for student learning.

Table 3: Teacher Opinions of Testing, Response Percentages

Opinions of testing	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither A/D	Agree	Strongly agree
The testing is an effective measurement of student learning	20.2%	40.2%	20.8%	17.8%	.9%
It is a useful tool in decision-making	6.6%	18.1%	28.7%	42.6%	3.9%
Test scores do not seem to coincide with student ability	.9%	18.4%	31.1%	36.3%	13.3%
Testing helps keep teachers accountable	18.7%	36.6%	20.8%	22.4%	1.5%
My career was more rewarding before the focus on testing	2.4%	10%	22.7%	31.1%	33.8%
The staff at my school works together to improve test scores	.6%	2.7%	11.2%	57.1%	28.4%
Test scores are an effective determinant of teacher and school merit pay	75.8%	18.4%	3.9%	.6%	1.2%

 

Only 9.6% agreed or strongly agreed with a statement about testing helping teachers to become more satisfied in their careers, while 64.9% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the negatively framed question, which said, “I believe that being a teacher was a more rewarding occupation before there was such a focus on standardized testing.”

One explanation for teacher dismay within their careers may be conceptualized through responses to statements about the stress and pressure that results from standardized testing, as mentioned in previous research by Hanson (2006) and Abrams et al. (2003). For the survey item, which stated, “Teachers in my school are pressured by administration to improve test scores,” 81.6% agreed or strongly agreed. Although most of the responses to statements conveyed negative outlooks toward standardized testing, teachers were a little more open to some aspect of the use of testing.

Table 4: Teacher Opinions Toward Testing, Weighted Means

Average opinions of testing (* = Negatively framed/ reversed)	Weighted mean
The testing is an effective measurement of student learning	m=2.39
It is a useful tool in decision-making	m=3.21
Test scores do not seem to coincide with student ability*	m=2.57
Testing helps keep teachers accountable	m=2.54
My career was more rewarding before the focus on testing*	m=2.15
The staff at my school works together to improve test scores	m=4.10
Test scores are an effective determinant of teacher and school merit pay	m=1.35

 

There were areas of teacher opinions toward standardized testing that were inconsistent with the seeming pattern. For the statement regarding test scores as useful tools in teacher decision-making, less than a 1/4 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The weighted mean paints a bit more neutral picture (m=3.212). Another piece that goes against the general trend of the survey, relates back to Wheelan and Kesselring’s (2005) study of faculty group development and it’s positive correlation with test scores. The present study found that a majority of 85.5% agreed or strongly agreed to the statement, “Teachers in my school work together to improve test scores.”

Question Two: What is the impact of state standards and standards-based testing on elementary and middle level teachers’ perceptions of student learning?

Teacher Perceptions: Effect of Standards on Student Learning

Perhaps the most intriguing of the research questions revolves around the most important part of a teacher’s job, student learning. Teachers seemed to have opinions of the affect of standards on student learning that are somewhat consistent with the general opinions discussed previously, in that they feel more positively about standards than they do testing (see tables 5 & 6 for complete data for the section). Despite being more positive, they clearly are dissatisfied or unsure of aspects of the standards as mean responses cohesively hover around a neutral score (m=3).

Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward the impact of state standards and standards-based testing on student learning related to number of years of teaching experience.

 

 

Table 5: Teacher Opinions of the Affect of Standards on Student Learning, Response Percentages

Standards & Student Learning Opinions	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither A/D	Agree	Strongly Agree
They ensure students learn up to date curriculum	6.8%	25.2%	27.5%	34.6%	5.9%
Students are more successful in school as a result of standards	11.1%	24.7%	43.2%	18.2%	2.8%
Standards encourage lower levels of learning (Bloom’s taxonomy)	2.3%	20.2%	36.4%	33%	8.2%
They have improved consistency	4%	13.4%	22.4%	52.3%	8%
Student achievement has lessened as a result of standards	3.7%	32.7%	37.8%	18.2%	7.7%
Standards raise the educational bar	7.1%	23.9%	27%	37.8%	4.3%

 

On the topic of improving the consistency of what students are taught each year, 60.3% agreed or strongly agreed that standards have successfully done this. The weighted mean (m=3.45) for this item was slightly positive, but not as much so as may be expected with nearly a quarter stating they neither agreed nor disagreed to the statement. A slightly smaller percentage, of 40.5% agreed or strongly agreed that teaching standards ensures students learn up to date curriculum. Again, a large percentage (27.5%) neither agreed nor disagreed, leaving the mean, m=3.057, to be very close to neutral. Teacher perceptions of how successful standards have been in improving the learning experiences of students was tested in four survey items.

The strongest opinion was displayed in the positively framed question about the cognitive level of standards. The survey item stated, “Standards tend to emphasize lower levels of learning, as determined by Bloom’s taxonomy.” The weighted mean for this question was slightly negative (m=2.75), although the percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement was less than half at 41.2%. A second, positively framed statement about standards helping to raise the “educational bar” had a similar percentage of 42% of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed to this nearly opposite statement; however, 27% neither agreed nor disagreed. Therefore, the mean of responses was closer to neutral (m=3.054).

The final two items related to student learning addressed the perceived changes in achievement and success. In answer to the statement, “Student achievement has lessened as a result of standards,” the largest percentage (37.8%) of teachers neither agreed nor disagreed, while nearly the same amount, 36.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed. A similar, positively framed question, which said, “I have seen more student success in schools because of standards,” produced slightly different results. Similar to the previous question, the largest percentage (43.2%) of teachers were unsure, marking that they neither agreed nor disagreed. Again, a comparable percentage (35.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, which conveyed an opposite opinion toward this similar, negatively stated item.

Table 6: Teacher Opinions of the Effect of Standards on Student Learning, Weighted Means

Average opinions of affect of standards on student learning  (* = Negatively framed/reversed)	Weighted mean
Standards ensure students learn up to date curriculum	m=3.06
Students are more successful in school as a result of standards	m=2.74
Standards encourage lower levels of learning (Bloom’s taxonomy)	m=2.73
Standards have improved consistency	m=3.45
Student achievement has lessened as a result of standards	m=3.07
Standards raise the educational bar	m=3.05

Teacher Perceptions of the Effect of

Standards-based Testing on Student Learning

Teacher opinions of the effect of testing on student learning were clearer to interpret because there was less of a tendency for teachers to choose the neutral “neither agree nor disagree” option on the scale. In the most general survey item related to opinions of testing and its affect on learning, teachers depicted a strong negative opinion. The survey item stated, “Student learning is negatively affected because of time spent on preparation for standardized testing,” prompted almost 70% of teachers to respond that they agreed or strongly agreed and the mean for the question was clearly negative (m=2.27). A similar item, phrased in positively said, “Standardized tests ensure that students who are not proficient or are gifted are identified, that otherwise may not be,” and the result was similarly negative toward testing. Only 16.3% agreed or strongly agreed and 56.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. The mean was just about as negative as in the previous item (m=2.435).

Two survey items were about focusing time on math and reading. In another of the negatively weighted results, teachers were unified against the idea of cutting out other subject time in order to focus on improvement in math and reading scores, as 71% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed, with a mean closest to disagree (m=2.1). In the negatively phrased opposite statement, “A focus on improvement in student math and language scores is a problem because students are missing out on a well-rounded education,” 63% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed, with a mean that was weighted negatively toward standards (m=2.36).

As discussed in research by Tuerk (2005) as well as Wheelen and Kesselring (2005), there tends to be a tendency for less of the most qualified teachers to be employed in high poverty schools and districts where test scores are generally lower. The data from the study was consistent with the previous research, as 83.4% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed to the statement, “Some of the best teachers may be less likely to teach in lower socio-economic schools for fear of not meeting testing goals. “The mean was also negative and was one of the lowest means at 1.9.”

Table 7: Teacher Opinions of the Affect of Standards-based Testing on Student Learning, Response Percentages

Testing & Student Learning	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither A/D	Agree	Strongly agree
Student learning is negatively affected by testing	20.2%	40.2%	20.8%	17.8%	.9%
Teachers are less likely to teacher in lower socioeconomic schools because of testing	1.8%	6.3%	8.5%	37.5%	45.9%
Students get a less well-rounded education	2.4%	16.6%	17.5%	41.1%	22.4%
Testing encourages lower cognitive level thinking	1.5%	10.6%	28.4%	38.4%	21.1%
Testing identifies gifted or failing students	17.2%	39.6%	26.9%	15.4%	.9%
It is appropriate to cut other subjects in order to concentrate on testing	42.3%	28.7%	5.4%	15.1%	8.5%
Testing ensures students are competitive and knowledgeable	16.3%	36.3%	23.3%	23.3%	.9%

 

Table 8: Teacher Opinions of the Affect of Standards-based Testing on Student Learning, Weighted Means

Average opinions of affect of testing on student learning  (* = Negatively framed and reversed, see appendix A)	Weighted mean
Student learning is negatively affected by testing*	m=2.27
Teachers are less likely to teacher in lower socioeconomic schools because of testing*	m=1.9
Students get a less well-rounded education*	m=3.07
Testing encourages lower cognitive level thinking*	m=2.34
Testing identifies gifted or failing students	m=2.44
It is appropriate to cut other subjects in order to concentrate on testing	m=2.10
Testing ensures students are knowledgeable and competitive	m=2.56

             The study attempted to address teacher perceptions of the effect of standards-based testing on student learning in a survey item about the perceived cognitive level encouraged by testing. The statement said that a focus on teaching for standardized testing is likely to create students who think at a lower cognitive level. To this statement, about 60% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed, in other words, that testing encourages less higher level thinking. Again, the weighted mean indicates a negative outlook toward testing (m=2.34). Finally, a statement about the competitive edge of testing also produced a negative response. The item said that the testing is “important to ensure that students are knowledgeable and prepared to be competitive in the world.” Responses had a slightly negatively weighted mean (m=2.56). The percentage of teachers who disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement was 52.6%.

Findings from Open-Ended Questions

The open-ended portion of the survey not only allowed the research variables in the survey to be further elaborated on and explained, but they also provided the opportunity to triangulate the survey data through the participants’ own words and experiences. In most cases, the comments further demonstrated the results of the survey, which indicated that teachers were in favor of the concepts of standards and standards-based testing, but had reservations about the ways that each are carried out. However, the difference found was that in some cases participants brought out some interesting topics, unanticipated by the research questions. It should be acknowledged that there was no topic given for the free response portion, but simply space for additional comments about standards and the same type of space for additional comments about testing. Some comments were lengthy, therefore, in some cases teachers elaborated on many topics. The percentages of comments pertaining to each topic addressed in the analysis are simply a figure to help the reader better conceptualize the topics discussed by teachers and the number of teachers commenting on each issue and not an indication of an accurate percentage of all of the teachers’ opinions on the topics.

Standards

Teacher attitudes toward standards were again more favorable than they were toward testing. The first variable related to opinions of standards that was common among teacher comments dealt with the standards being a necessary or useful entity, similar to survey items 4c and 4i (all survey items may be referenced in Appendix A for data and Appendix C for full survey). Of 114 comments about standards, 42 teachers (36.8%) mentioned this aspect specifically through various synonyms of the variables “useful” or “necessary”. Certain terms like “benchmark,” “equality,” “set the bar,” and “continuity” were very common in explanations of how the standards were important to teachers. One comment that encompassed the comments of many said simply, “Because of our highly mobile population, we have to ensure continuity by using some sort of educational continuum. State standards help provide a framework for this and for establishing benchmarks.” 

Another teacher said, “As a teacher, I feel standards are the ‘compass’ that gives me and my colleagues direction on our course to guide my students in their learning goals.” Finally, another teacher explained his/her positive perception of the standards in a way that fit the comments of a few others, “Standards are simply the baseline. Teachers should, and often do, teach beyond them.”

Although many teachers touched on a positive aspect or possibility, most comments delved into a negative take within the same sentence with a conjunction like ‘but’ or ‘however.’ Those comments that negated any possible use of the current version of Idaho’s standards were the most extreme group identified. Most of the comments didn’t specifically disagree with the idea of standards, but directed criticism to the current format. One common reason for dissatisfaction toward standards dealt with the way they were written. Of 114 comments, 29 (25%) touched on this area of dissatisfaction. As one teacher stated in feelings about his or her own classroom and subject, “The standards for junior-high and senior high science are poorly thought, badly written, and an intrusion into the classroom that is entirely unwarranted.” Common reasons for issue with the present format were issue with a lack of higher cognitive level standards (as addressed in survey items 4e and 4n), found in comments such as “We need more depth not breadth” or “I feel that they should include standards which promote higher level thinking and more open-ended thought processes.” Most commonly, teachers conveyed frustration with how the standards are determined.

Just the game of the week…nothing in them is meaningful, no thought has ever gone into how to really apply them effectively, the administrators at the state level are not competent enough to coordinate them with the classroom, in short, why waste time with them until we have the ability to utilize them effectively.

Another teacher similarly specifically scrutinized the Idaho State Board of Education, calling the recent mandating, changing and alignment with testing of the standards “questionable.”  Still others were vehement enough to describe the writers of the standards as “people who sit in ivory towers and have no concept of the real world,” guilty of “attempting to reinvent the wheel,” or as another said, “Out of touch with reality of what home life is like for so many of our families…people that have no idea about elementary schools…If they have been around the elementary classroom, it has been a long time.” 

Many teachers suggested what they deemed to be a better venue for writing standards, such as through local means, “Let the make up of student population determine what standards are to be reached. Rich kids in Boise vs. Poor kids in Wilder.”  Others suggested allowing “regular classroom teachers on the front line” to develop standards and a few suggested a national take on standards, one teacher even mentioned adopting “NCTM” (National Mathematics Standards).

Others described dismay through specific content rather than who writes the standards or how they are written. Some disapproved of the specific content required to be covered within the standards. The most frequently addressed subject in this area of content criticism was social studies. One teacher said, “The standards for social studies (my area) are clearly written for political reasons and NOT by teachers or anyone who has been in the classroom.” Another teacher expressed concern with his or her social studies class, saying that standards miss the “heart” of the subject. Still other teachers, often stating that they were at the primary level, discussed having no time at all for social studies. “Grades K-3 do not have time to teach sci./s.s. (which is in the standards) nor do we have a block set aside for it or material …we do not take time to reflect or teach events such as Women’s History, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents Day, etc.” 

  A few teachers also addressed science standards in particular as an area of concern. A few teachers gave specific descriptions of problematic areas. One teacher discussed the problem of the Idaho standards receiving a ‘D’ from an independent organization, but delved more specifically into an issue he or she noticed when teaching the subject. “Students in Idaho are not expected to learn about plants, animals, or themselves (human body), but they do learn about cells and genetics three years in a row (5^th-7^th grades).” 

A final theme in teacher comments about their general opinions of standards dealt with a lack of time to address all of the standards and/ or the pressure related to the massive expectations (as addressed in survey questions 4f and 4j-4m). Of the 114 teacher comments on standards, 28 (25%) discussed this problem. One comment really encompassed a good majority of the comments through discussion of how the reform has changed his or her career and even personal life.

There is such a push to completely cover the state standards in such a short time. Teachers used to have time to use kinetic activities intermixed with core principles to excite students about learning…They (students) get tired of hearing, ‘We have to hurry, we have to meet the ISAT deadlines,’ or ‘We don’t have much time so we won’t be going back…’ On a more personal note, as a core subject teacher of language arts, I have never had more intensity in my job, less time, more meetings, more parent contact, and less money supplied to get the work done with. These increases in my work burden have taken time away from my family and home budget…

An interesting issue found in comments that was not anticipated, but extremely common was the discussion of mandated school and/or district curriculum, as well as a conveyed frustration toward the situation. Teachers who discussed this used commentary such as, “I do not use the standards at all- I teach Open Court and only what Open Court tells me!  It may align with the standards sometimes- but I never refer to them!”  The issue was apparent in the verbs used to describe the adopted curriculum, such as, “We are controlled by the Houghton Mifflin reading series.” One teacher described the differences in Idaho from his or her previous experience in Nevada, which he or she felt was very standards driven. This teacher used descriptors like “fidelity” that other teachers also shared in and talked about a lack of awareness of standards in the school. “When I moved to Idaho I was explicitly told that I must teach ‘the curriculum’ with fidelity. No one at my school even seems to know that there are standards. All the pressure is on curriculum and scores.”

Teacher comments specifically about the affect of standards on student learning (as addressed in survey items 4e, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4p) were more negative than positive with 22 of 114 (19%) conveying a negative outlook. Although many of the aforementioned comments addressed issues of equality, continuity, and benchmarks, which are positive for learners, they were not discussed in the realm of affect on student learning. Those comments that did speak directly to the topic were negative toward standards for reasons such as a “decline in quality of what is taught” or “unrealistic” because there is no “standard child.”  More specifically, teachers discussed less student engagement and creativity as a result of standards. One teacher shared that he or she believed that the “Reading rate of young students is too high.” One teacher explained variables that many discussed. “…being tied strictly to state standards lessens a teacher’s ability to be creative, and makes learning boring for students within core subjects. It takes away life’s learning moments because there is such a push to completely cover the state standards in such a short time.”

Standards-based Testing

            The comments about the standards-based testing practices in Idaho were much more negative than those about standards. Of the 81 comments about testing, 26 (32%) conveyed some sort of positive outlook toward the potential use of standardized testing (addressed in survey items 6c, 6g, 6i, 6o). The types of descriptors for praising the idea of testing were commonly terms like “helpful” or “tool.”  In all but one of these more optimistic comments, teachers talked about the positive side of testing mainly in a hypothetical manner or with a negative comment immediately following, such as “I think standardized testing is important, but it should be used as a tool (one among many) by teachers in lesson planning, not as the final say in ability of a student or the quality of a teacher or school.”  Another comment that represented the majority said, “I feel that standardized testing is needed and important, but over done.” Unlike all of the other 25 half positive comments, one teacher complimented testing without any kind of added criticism.

I am probably in the minority, but I don’t find the standardized tests that intrusive. I have actually learned a lot through the testing about my students. Part of the reason might be that my principal doesn’t want us to prepare our students for the tests…therefore, at least to my knowledge, there is very little time spent on preparing students for standardized testing.

Out of the 81 comments, 88% (71) of the comments conveyed various forms of dissatisfaction with the current format and uses of standardized testing. A large number of these complaints were centered on a belief of a lack of validity in the test and, often, a complaint about too much faith in the numbers (As addressed in survey items 6a & 6h). One teacher summed this up by saying, “Standardized testing will never give teachers what is needed to assist in planning curriculum. Any teacher worth their salary can more adequately assess the students in their classroom than all of the standardized tests combined.” Some teachers warned against too much faith or dependency in single test scores with comments like, “Standardized testing is only an effective tool if its limitations are understood…An educator should never make decisions based solely on the information from a standardized test.” One teacher’s comment was a deeper explanation of many viewpoints that expressed a belief that standards-based test produced “completely meaningless scores.” Teachers addressed the issue of demographics as one reason for this, “Standardized tests show what zip code a child lives in, not their level of intelligence.” Even teachers from districts with seeming high socio-economic status expressed concern. The comment below is an example of this.

Standardized testing really only tests the demographics of an area. My school does particularly well not because we are the best teachers in town, but because we live on the right side of town!  I am not a dummy. I know if I were to transfer to a different demographic with lower income and more special Ed and English as a second Language students, that my test scores would go way down, without a change in how or what I teach. The testing tests the kids not the quality of instruction!

Other arguments against the validity of test scores were often illustrated through stories and examples from teachers’ own personal observations and experiences in the classroom. A frequently expressed opinion was that tests do not accurately “prove” what a student understands or what they can do. One teacher gave an explanatory reason for this. “It proves that they (students) are good or not so good at taking tests on a computer. A kindergarten teacher shared an experience with the Idaho Reading Inventory (IRI), a test given to primary students. The teacher claimed that all of the teaching he or she does is “judged by a test that takes ten minutes to administer and doesn’t take into consideration any other aspect of the child’s progress or mood.” The teacher describes what he or she considered an all too common instance of an outside factor affecting a student’s test score. “How was my little five year old supposed to do well on a test that was given three hours after he saw his dog hit by a bus on the way to school?”         

Like others, the teacher further expressed that he or she was not opposed to being held accountable for students’ abilities to perform skills, however, the teacher elaborated on an experience with the invalid scores and what was described as completely separate skill sets of the fall and winter tests. “I actually had a principal tell me that some kids had not learned anything because they did poorer on the winter test L,” he/ she commented.

Other stories mirrored the accounts from the kindergarten teacher. One teacher pinpointed issues that represented many voices, “…it is how the test is put together. Are the questions rote memorization?  Or are they having a student think through an answer?  The tests can be a great asset (as a tool) or they can be used as a weapon (this is what is happening now).” Not unlike the accusation of being used as a “weapon,” test scores are further described as threatening to teachers because the educators say they “are being over emphasized.”  About the accuracy of administering identical tests to all students and expecting the same level of mastery, one teacher said, “That is inaccurate to say the least. That would be the same as saying all children will walk and talk at the exactly the same time in life. We all know that is not true. We all know everyone learns at different rates.” 

            As with standards, teachers expressed dismay about how the tests were designed, for instance, one teacher asked “Who decided what material would be tested and under what assumptions they were designed?” Also not unlike the discussion about standards, teachers expressed politically charged frustration with descriptions such as, “Standardized testing was created for the politicians, not the students.” A great deal of teachers articulated dissatisfaction with the current “micro-management” from top-down schemes, run by those they often describe as out of touch with the profession through comments that were often directed at the president. One teacher spoke heatedly about the president, calling No Child Left Behind an “ill-founded, unfunded mandate.. doing/accomplishing nothing…” Another teacher expressed political disdain in much the same way as others, while also touching on related areas of contention that were frequently mentioned by teachers.

Testing should be a tool, not a goal…important questions to ask are: Who decides what the standards will be?  A person from the privileged white class?  Why is science more important than social studies?  Doesn’t our society need an educated middle class, meaning informed citizens with regard to politics, world geography, and world economy, ect. Who decided that we all need to know high-level math and science? Don’t we need artists and musicians in our society?  I have a master’s degree and have a very good life-but without the high-level math and science. Perhaps we should teach our students how to say “nuclear” instead of “nucular” (as our president says). Is that on a standardized test?

            Others were a bit less quick to point a finger at a specific person, but still saw testing as a highly bothersome and specifically, political issue. “Standardized tests are a result of the USA competing with the rest of the world,” said on teacher. One thing that seemed to accompany or be underlying in these responses was a seeming contempt for the disregard of teachers’ professional opinions as educators. “ISATs are an insult to teachers. Yes, we need to have an assessment, but one that doesn’t force teachers to dumb down the curriculum to ensure that their students pass a test.” One second grade teacher even described a staff meeting at which all staff were given a handout that stated that “All decisions must be made based on the data. All pertinent data counts. Data will drive the discussions and decisions. Opinions must be secondary to fact.” The teacher explained his or her frustration with this type of management. “Wow!  Basically this says regardless of what we know about our students, we need to follow the results of tests.” 

Another teacher similarly conveyed this notion of disregard for teacher professional treatment through a comparison with other professionals, “They (standards and testing) are analogous to telling a physician who is examining a particular patient that they must find the patient to be suffering from a particular list of diagnoses.”  Differences in these feelings were quite evident within situations that teachers felt administrators failed to acknowledge their expertise. “We are ORDERED to be in lock step and do what the principal {who thinks he has all of the answers} tells us to do. Even those of us who have been in education for 35 years or more are told we don’t know anything about teaching. This is not a sensible way to run a school district…”

The issue of “teacher burnout” as addressed by Hansen (2006) was frequently seen in teacher comments and quite often went hand in hand with the previously addressed issue of  teachers feeling as though they are not treated as professionals. As one teacher explained, “That is a reason we have a shortage now in the teaching profession.”  He or she, who was in the group of teachers with 25 or more years of experience, further explained how he/she sees it affecting teachers in the future. “My job gets harder every year. I do not recommend teaching for a long career now. The days of teaching in a classroom for thirty years, especially in a subject that is tested will not happen anymore. The stress is too great.”  Another teacher shared that his or her school environment had become competitive and ensuing pressure had caused teachers to “avoid sharing materials or information.” Also consistent with previous research, general opinions of testing were not much more positive than were the opinions of how testing affected student learning.

There were 36 comments discussing the negative affect of testing on student learning (as addressed in survey items 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f, & 6n) of the 81 (44%). Of all of the comments that were written about the affect of testing on student learning, by far the most widespread worry was the amount of time spent preparing for testing; more precisely how the time left for “real learning” is affected and other subject time that is cut out. Some teachers attempted to quantify the amount of time spent on testing to demonstrate how much class time is missed. “We miss probably 20 days a year of classes for testing!”  A second grade teacher said, “We take the TPRI test three times a year, IRI three times a year, ISAT three times a year in three subject areas, ITBS in the spring, a unit test four times a year, that is 20 tests…plus a lesson test weekly for our reading program.” The stories from primary teachers seemed to be quite consistent with the second grade teacher’s account and teachers reflected on how they felt about the affect they believe it to be having on students. A first grade teacher shared feelings on the topic.

There are a lot of really good teachers getting out of teaching because all we do is test these kids to death…I think it is very sad what we are doing to these children. We are treating them more like things that need high test scores to be successful rather than children who are excited to explore and learn. Our school is 90% free and reduced lunch. I have 27 first graders in my classroom, probably 50% have horrible home lives, and all I am ever told by administration is that I need to get their test scores up. How very sad. Yes I do think we need standardized testing, but there are so many other factors that go into teaching a child…

            Another teacher with 25 or more years experience discussed similar concerns for student learning with the amount of testing and his or her view of the changes that have taken place. “I do not have time to be as human as I was before…I do not have time to deal with their (students) needs as learners, and they cannot learn as well when their needs are not met.” Further, the teacher discussed a change in his or her ability to make “learning fun” through less time to explore students’ interests.

Not only did teachers discuss the amount of time taken over by testing, but also time taken to prepare for testing. One teacher likened the behavior to the adage, “You do not fatten lambs by weighing them.” The teacher called the amount of time spent “insane” and explained that “one fourth of the year” was spent taking a multiple choice type test in an attempt to improve “test taking skills.” Another teacher said that every few days, time was spent in preparation for testing and reflected on the problem. “When is there time to teach with all the testing? And we wonder why our country is falling behind other countries!  Maybe if we spent more time on learning..” 

Differences by Level of Experience

Extreme differences by level of teaching experience in comments about standards and testing were found. However, based upon the small size of the number of those who commented on each topic, we cannot assume their comments fully representative of that subgroup. Teachers were separated by number of years of experience into four groups. Those who had 26 or more years experience were labeled “very experienced,” those with 16 to 25 years experience were labeled “experienced,” those with six  to 15 years were labeled “novice,” and those with one to five years were labeled “new.” The size of the groups were similar, but the number of teachers that chose to comment was extremely varied, which likely had an affect on the overall percentages, therefore the data should be seen as merely a piece of the puzzle.

 The number of teachers from each level of experience who viewed standards as necessary or useful was consistent, with a slight difference seen in the newest teachers. Eight teachers from the category of very experienced (39%), 10 from the experienced category (33%), 15 from the novice (37%) , and nine from the new category (11%) discussed this topic of standards being useful. A similar pattern was seen for comments about the issue of there being too many standards and not enough time. Five new teachers (6%), 10 novice teachers (25%), eight experienced (27%), and five (22%) very experienced reflected on the issue of a lack of time.

On the topic of opposition to the way standards are written, few of the new teachers, with only 3, commented on the topic (4%), as opposed to eight novice (20%), eight experienced (26%), and 10 very experienced (43%). Finally, a slightly larger number of very experienced teachers with nine comments, reflected on standards as a detriment to student learning (30%). Four teachers from each categories of experienced (13%) and novice (10%) and five from the new teacher category (6%) discussed a detriment to student learning as a problem with standards.

The numbers of teachers from each experience level varied for some sort of positive comment within the written comments about standards-based testing. Only three very experienced (16%) and six experienced (26%) had something positive to say about testing, while 10 novice (37%), and seven (50%) new teachers commented positively. The discrepancies between experience and negative comments about testing were a bit less noticeable.

The largest percentage of negative comments (13) were found from the new teachers (93%), followed by 19 experienced (83%), 21 novice (78%), and 18 very experienced being the least percentage (67%). Finally, teacher comments about the negative affect of testing on student learning were slightly varied by experience. Four very experienced teachers (21%), 11 experienced (48%), nine new (64%), and 12 novice (78%) discussed this as a problem.

              Overall, little differences can be seen in teacher comments of standards-based testing between groups, based on number of years of teaching experience, despite some differences seen between very experienced and new teachers. The pattern noted was the small group of new teachers in opposition to standards and testing and relatively large number of very experienced teacher comments. The differences in the number of those who participated in the optional comment section were likely a factor. Therefore the analysis of comments should be seen as an additional source of information in answering the research questions related to teacher experience.

Inferential Statistics

            The study was designed to answer both research questions through sub questions related to differences in teacher attitudes toward standards and standards-based testing, based upon the number of years of teaching experience they had. This aspect was analyzed differently than the rest of the data. Rather than comparing percentages and weighted means, a two-sample t-test was performed with mean survey scores. In order to best decipher differences by level of experience the two extremes of the sample were tested. The first group was made up of teachers with one to five years experience, which is often a group considered to be of minimal experience. The second was teachers with 25 or more years experience, which is a group considered very experienced. The score from each subgroup participant was computed for the survey items dealing with testing.  A separate score was completed for participant responses to survey items dealing with standards. Each participant was scored, based upon numeric weighting of survey responses for the section on standards and the section on standards-based testing (see Appendix C for survey). For example, a low score would signify negative responses to survey items and a more negative outlook toward standards and testing, while a high score would represent a positive attitude. The null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between levels of teaching experience was tested.

 Question One Sub Question: Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward standards and standards-based testing related to number of years of teaching experience?

A two-sample t-Test assuming unequal variances was run on Microsoft Excel to determine whether there was a significant difference (p <  .05) between the two extremes of the sample in their views of standards (For complete test data see table 9). The two-tail t-test revealed no significant difference (p=. 19) between the means of opinion scores for relatively inexperienced teachers and experienced teachers. The null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between the two extremes of the sample was accepted.

 

 

 

Table 9: Teacher Opinions of Standards, t-Test Comparison By Years of Experience 

T-Test: Teacher Opinions of Standards	25 or more years experience	1-5 years experience
Mean	54.27272727	56.1687
Variance	72.87832168	80.8736
Observations	66	83
t-statistic	-1.315046215	-1.315046215
P (T<=t) two tail	0.190614049	0.190614049
T Critical two tail	1.976810963	1.976810963

 

 Question Two Sub Question: Are elementary and middle level teacher attitudes toward the impact of state standards and standards-based testing on student learning related to number of years of teaching experience?

A two-sample t-Test assuming unequal variances was run on Microsoft Excel to determine whether there was a significant difference (p < .05) between the two subgroups representing the experienced and inexperienced extremes of the sample in their views of standards-based testing (For complete data see table 10). The two-tailed t-test again revealed no significant difference (p=.9102) between the groups of experienced and fairly inexperienced teachers. The null hypothesis of no significant difference between experienced and fairly inexperienced teachers was accepted.

 

 

Table 10: Teacher Opinions of Standards-based Testing, t-Test Comparison By Years of Experience 

t-Test: Teacher Opinions of Standards-based Testing	25 or more years experience	1-5 years experience
Mean	40.43076923	40.58974359
Variance	75.15528846	64.11521812
Observations	65	78
t-statistic	-1.315046215	-1.315046215
P (T<=t) two tail	0.910179419	0.910179419
t Critical two tail	1.978098814	1.978098814

Summary

The findings of the survey revealed an overall positive attitude toward the concept of standards in education, however dismay in the particular utilization of those standards was apparent in survey responses. The survey revealed an overall negative response to the Idaho testing programs, with an area of slightly positive opinion in the use of testing data as an informational tool  The results from the open-ended portion of the survey further replicated the results from the Lickert type scale responses and provide some triangulation of survey results. Other findings from the open ended responses also revealed variables and helped to identify alternate reasons for teacher opinions of standards-based testing.

 

Chapter V:
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

Summary

Four hundred fifteen Southwest Idaho teachers responded to the online survey on opinions of standards and testing procedures in Idaho. The purpose of this study was to ascertain teacher opinions toward standards and testing in Idaho, determine what teachers believe the effect of standards and testing is on student learning, and whether there is a difference in opinions of standards and testing based upon level of teaching experience. Survey responses were collected on Survey Monkey and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. An open-ended portion of the survey assisted in triangulating survey data and creating an opportunity for the researcher to identify variables not included in the survey.

Overall, teachers were more positive about standards than they were toward testing. Most teachers have read and understand the standards for their grade level or subject and almost three quarters of teachers find the standards to be useful in creating a framework for teaching and ensuring scope and sequence. About half of all teachers felt that standards were best determined at a district or building level. Pressure associated with standards was found to be an issue with more than half of teachers who claimed that they feel pressure to teach all of the concepts mandated in the standards. Half of teachers deemed the pressure to be responsible for a negative affect on their teaching. Sixty percent of teachers agreed with the statement, “The movement toward standards has lead many of the best teachers to become less satisfied in their careers.

Teacher opinions of the effect of standards on student learning were similarly both positive and negative. Teachers appreciate the improved consistency in what students are taught each year. A little under half believed that standards “raise the educational bar” and a similar percentage agreed that standards helped ensure that students “learn up to date curriculum.”  The rest of the responses to survey items were more negative. Just under half of teachers agreed with the statement “Standards tend to emphasize lower levels of learning”. Most teachers were neutral about statements that discussed changes in student learning as a result of standards. “I have seen more student success in schools because of standards” resulted in about half neither agreeing nor disagreeing and the statement “Student achievement in schools has lessened as a result of standards” had a similar response with the same neutral option.

Teacher comments about standards were consistent with survey results, yet some previously unidentified variables were determined to be important factors when determining teacher opinions of standards. Many teachers had something positive to report about the usefulness of standards in their free-response comments. Conversely, a great deal of the teachers who had something positive to say about standards also reflected on concerns they had found in using the standards. A common reason for dissatisfaction was the way standards were written (cognitive level) and which topics were chosen (subject matter).

One unanticipated result was that so many teachers communicated frustration toward policy makers. They more specifically conveyed dissatisfaction with the top-down development, mandating of standards and frequently talked of the professional insult they feel in not having an integral part in the development of standards. Solutions were suggested by teachers, such as developing standards locally, allowing teachers to assist in or direct in the development of standards, or even adopting national type standards. Another of the results, which was unexpected was the discussion of mandated school or district curriculum and a complete inability or not enough freedom to even utilize standards because of it. This was often termed to be a “fidelity” to a curriculum and teachers discussed the problem of curriculum not matching standards.

Teacher comments specifically about the affect of standards on student learning were more negative than positive. Although many of the comments addressed issues of equality, continuity, and benchmarks, as mentioned above; the discussed variables that should be considered positive to student learning were not directly speaking about the affect on student learning. Those comments that did speak directly to the topic were negative toward standards because of a “decline in quality of what is taught” or “unrealistic” because there is no “standard child.”  More specifically, teachers discussed less student engagement and creativity.

Opinions toward testing revealed that teachers were much more negative toward testing than they were toward standards. Just as with standards, teachers appreciated certain aspects of testing. About half of teachers found testing to be a useful tool in decision making. Almost 90% claimed that teachers in their school worked together to improve tests scores. Most items on the survey related to testing revealed negative opinions from teachers. Over half of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed that standardized test are an effective measurement of student learning. An even greater 70% agreed or strongly agreed that tests scores do not accurately test student learning. Further, teachers were very opposed to the concept of test scores as a determinant for teacher and school merit pay, with the vast majority stating that they disagreed with the idea. To the statement that teaching was a more rewarding career before the movement toward testing, over half agreed or strongly agreed. More than three quarters of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the teachers in their school are “pressured by administration to improve test scores.”

Teacher comments about standardized testing were consistent with the survey items on the topic, but just as with the standards, some variables were identified that were not predicted. Some sort of positive opinion of standards-based testing was conveyed in 32% of the comments. Factors used in descriptions were terms like “helpful,” or “tool.”  Quite often, positive comments were followed by a problem with the testing. Main complaints dealt with the amount of time spent on testing and feelings that the test is not valid. A staggering 88% conveyed dissatisfaction with testing practices. Teachers expressed the misgivings of their teaching being judged on a “snapshot” of a test. Many teachers also discussed the inability of the test to capture student learning because of the limits of a multiple choice test on a computer.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the contention that, found in previous research, standards and standards-based testing can be quite useful to teachers (Goertz, 2001; Glatthorn & Fontana, 2000; Dutro et al. 2002) in providing framework for teaching, sequencing, benchmarks, data to make informed decisions, and focusing on student outcomes and progress. The teachers in this study showed appreciation for standards and standards-based testing in both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the research. However, the results also indicate that standards and standards-based testing can create stress and pressure for teachers that may negatively affect teaching and student learning, which also corroborated previous research (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Deci et al., 1982; Flink et al., 1990).

Teachers conveyed that standards are cognitively inappropriate, attempt to cover too much information, and cover skills and information that teachers do not necessarily find important. Standards-based testing presented even more problems for teachers. They indicated that the stress and pressure they feel as a result. This study also supports previous data that special populations of students, such as those of low socioeconomic status, may actually find standards to be a disservice because of standards-based testing and teachers’ hesitation to move into districts with large percentages of special populations for fear of not meeting performance goals (Tuerk, 2005; Herman, Abedi, & Golan, 1994; Wheelan & Kesselring, 2005; Amrein & Berliner, 2002).

The present study did not support a difference in views of standards and standards-based testing between groups of teachers who are new to the field and experienced teachers of 25 years or more, unlike previous research that seemed to indicated a difference based upon experience (Green, 1992). Despite this the results of the qualitative section indicate that there were some slight differences in the topics chosen to be discussed in the open-ended portion of the survey. 

The results of this study also support and agree with previous research of standards and standards-based testing in which most teachers did not believe standards-based testing programs to be of assistance in student learning (Moore,1994). Finally, previous studies on emotional exhaustion as a result of standards-based testing were supported by the results of this study (Hanson, 2006). Teacher dissatisfaction in their careers, related to standards-based testing was conveyed as a result in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the study. 

Recommendations for Practice

The data from the present study supports the use of standards as a framework for teacher planning and testing as a tool for teacher decision-making. However, the present study addresses some problems in the rigid implementation of standards-based testing programs for the detriment is may be to student learning and teachers satisfaction in their careers. Further, teachers expressed extreme discontent with not only implementation, but also the number, cognitive levels, and content of standards. Because of these problems, the researcher recommends practices shown to be more successful in studies of standards-based policy making. One such variable for success is less pressure on teachers for student results with standards and test scores (Goertz, 2001). Other important recommendations would include the involvement of a significant percentage of teachers in the revision of standards. Also crucial is including professional development opportunities that incorporate teacher collaboration in gathering materials like work samples, videos, and narrative that are tied to the standards. Activities such as these are recommended as they are desired by teachers and have been proven effective in standards-based testing programs (Dutro et al., 2002; Glatthorn & Fontana, 2000).

It is recommended that testing programs are well aligned with standards. The research strongly supports the notion that high stakes such as determining grade promotion, or labeling of teachers, students, and districts tied to testing programs is a detriment to students as well as teachers. Therefore, the researcher recommends that single scores are not used to make high stakes decisions. Focusing on student improvement over time, rather than reaching a specific score is one way found to be more effective (Wang et al., 2006). A more accurate portrayal of improvement over time may be seen by tracking the same set of students through several grades, rather than comparing them to an entirely different group of students in the same teachers class the next year. Finally, including an open-ended response portion, as employed by the WASL, may be useful in creating a format that teachers appreciate as an effective test of student learning (Stetcher et al., 2004).

Lastly, another recommendation is creating better venues for educational leaders to dialogue with teachers in order to discover the issues found at the classroom level. This action will be important in order to utilize the expertise of the professionals who utilize standards and standards-based testing data. A failure to do so could be detrimental to schools as revealed by both the qualitative and quantitative data from the study, which both uncovered teacher dissatisfaction within their careers as a result of the standards-based testing program in the state.

Recommendations for Future Study

As the field of education finds the younger portion of baby boomer teachers readying for retirement and foresees likely increases in teacher shortages, already prevalent in some areas, the need for study of teacher opinions is real. Such future studies will be imperative for future effective policy making.

Little research has been done on teacher opinions of standards and standards-based testing or their views of its affect on student learning. It is recommended that future studies pursue this important topic to affirm or disprove findings, as well as identify other variables behind teacher opinions. The researcher also recommends that more research is done to determine more effective methods of carrying out standards-based testing programs. It is still early to determine the effectiveness of standards and standards-based testing programs, therefore there needs to be far more study before coming to conclusions.

 

 

References

Abrams, L., Pedulla, J., & Madaus, G. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’

opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 18-29.

Airasian, P. & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy.

            Theory Into Practice, 41, 249-254.
Airasian, P. (1998). Measurement driven instruction: A closer look. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice Retrieved July 1, 2007, from ERIC database.

Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.

           Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 10-18.

Business Roundtable, W. (2003). What Parents, Students and Teachers Think

about Standards, Tests, Accountability… and More. Updated March 2003. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482283) Retrieved July 1, 2007, from ERIC database.

Burroughs, S., Groce, E., & Webeck, M. (2005). Social Studies education in the age of

          testing and accountability. Invited Testing Policy Perspective, 24, 13-20.

Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes?

          Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.

Cawthon, S. (2005). Early elementary curricular alignment and teacher perspectives on

          standards-based reform. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 428-434.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). No child left behind

          act: A description of state responsibilities. CCSSO, Washington, DC.

 

 

Crocker, L. (2003). Teaching for the test: Validity, fairness, and moral action.

Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, Retrieved July 1, 2007,

from ERIC database.

Deci, E., Spiegel, N., Ryan, R., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. (1982). Effects of

           performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers. 

           Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 852-859.

Dutro, E., Fisk, M., Koch, R., Roop, L., & Wixson, K. (2002). Teachers College Record,

           104,787-811.

Educational Research Service, A. (1992). Nationwide School Reforms: Opinion Data    
          from the General Public, School Principals, and Teachers. ERS Information Aid.
         (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED349684) Retrieved June 5, 2007,  
          from ERIC database.
Education Week. (2004). Education week special report, quality counts 2004: Count me      
           in: Special Education in an Era of Standards. Retrieved June 5,   
           2007, from ERIC database.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies:  
         Undermining children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality
         and Social Psychology, 59, 916-924.
Frary, R., Cross, L., & Weber, L. (1993). Testing and grading practices and opinions of
            secondary teachers of academic subjects: Implications for instruction in
           measurement. Educational Measurement, Issues, and Practice, 12, 23-30.

Gallagher, C. (2003) Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm.
            Educational Psychology Review, 15, 83-99.
Gellman, E., Guarino, A., Witte, J. (2001). Attitudes towards the use of tests and test   
             scores. Psychological Reports, 89, 669-671.

General Accounting Office, W. (1993). Educational Testing: The Canadian          

Experience with Standards, Examinations, and Assessments. Report to Congressional Requesters. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361377) Retrieved July 1, 2007, from ERIC database.

Glatthorn, A. & Fontana, J. (2000) Coping with standards, tests, and accountability:

            Voices from within the classroom. National Education Association, United States.

Goertz, M. (2001). Standards-based accountability: Horse trade or horse whip? In S. H.

           Fuhrman (Ed)., From the Capital to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in  

           the States (pp. 39-59). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

Green, K. (1992). Differing opinions on testing between preservice and in-service

           teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 37-41.

Grolnick, W.,  & Ryan, R. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental 
           and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social
           Psychology, 52, 890-898.

Hanson, A. (2006). No child left behind; High stakes testing and teacher burnout in

            urban elementary schools. EBSCO, Online Submissions. Retrieved June 5,   
            2007, from ERIC database.

Herman, J., Abedi, J., & Golan, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of standardized testing

             on schools. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 471-482.

 

 

High stakes testing: Is it fair to students? (n.d.) Retrieved June 5, 2007. from

             http://www.iowapta.org/pdf/legislative/Article_High_Stakes_Testing.pdf

Idaho State Department of Education (2006). Child Nutrition: CNP Program Data.
            Retrieved Dec. 6, 2006, from:
            http://www.sde.state.id.us/child/cnpdataandstatistics.asp

Idaho Department of Education. (2002). Every Child Learning Every Day Definitions.
           Boise, ID: Idaho State Department of Education.

Kher-Duriabhji, N., Lacina-Gifford, L., Carter, R., & Jones, R. (1995). Preservice

           teachers’ views on standardized testing practices. Research in the

          Schools, 2, 35- 40.

Koretz, D. (2005) Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. CSE Report

           655; Harvard Graduate School, Online Submission. Retrieved June 5,   
         2007, from ERIC database.

Lamb, J. (2007, April). The Testing Culture in one Rural Mississippi School. High

           School Journal, 90(4), 32-43.

Louis, K., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State mandated accountability in high

          schools: Teachers interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy,

          27, 177-204.
McAdams, R. (1993). Lessons from Abroad: How Other Countries Educate Their
         Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED392536) Retrieved July 3,   
         2007, from ERIC database.

Moore, P.(1994). The devaluation of standardized testing. Applied Measurement in

Education, 7, 343-368.
Mulvenon, S., Connors, J., & Lenares, D. (2001). Impact of Accountability and School
           Testing on Students: Is There Evidence of Anxiety?. (ERIC Document
           Reproduction Service No. ED460155) Retrieved June 30, 2007, from ERIC 
           database.

Mulvenon, S., Stegman, C., & Ritter, G. (2005). Test anxiety: A multifaceted study on 
          the perceptions of teacher principals, counselors, students, and parents.
          International Journal of Testing, 5, 37-61.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation At Risk. The Imperative for

            Educational Reform. (1983). Retrieved November 20, 2006, from

            www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
Neill, M. (2003). Low expectations and less learning: The problem with the no child

          left behind act. Social Education, 67, 281-300.

Olson, L. (2006). A decade of effort. Education Week, 17, 8-16.
Pipho, C. (2000, May). The Sting of High-Stakes Testing And Accountability. Phi Delta
         Kappan, 81(9), 645.

Remillard, J., & Jackson, K. (2006). Old math, new math: Parents’ experiences with

            standards-based reform. Mathematical Thinking and  Learning, 231-259.
Rex, L. (2003). Loss of the Creature: The Obscuring of Inclusivity in Classroom
           Discourse. Communication Education, 52(1), 30-46.
Rogosa, D. (2005). A school accountability case study: California API awards and the
          Orange County Register margin of error folly. In R. Phelps (Ed)., Defending 
          standardized testing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Rotberg, I. (1995). Myths about test score comparisons. Science, 270(5241),

           1446-1448.
Schroeder, L. (2006). What High-stakes Testing means for the Emotional Well-being of
          Students and Teachers. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from PsycINFO database.
Shepard, L., & Dougherty, K. (1991). Effects of High-Stakes Testing on  Instruction.
         (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED337468) Retrieved  May 30, 2007,
         from ERIC database.

Stetcher, B., Chun, T., & Barron, S. (2004). The effects of assessment-driven reform on 
        the teaching of writing in Washington state. Wash back in Language testing:  

         Research  contexts and methods, 4, 53-71.

Tuerk, P. (2005). Research in the high-stakes era; Achievement, resources, and No    
         Child Left Behind. Psychological Science, 16, 419-425.

Urdan, T, & Paris, S.. (1994). Teacher’s perceptions of standardized achievement tests.

           Educational Policy, 8, 137-156

US Census Bureau. (2000). State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved Dec. 16, 2006 from

           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html

Wang.L, Beckett, G., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in

            school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research

            evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 305-328.

Wheelan, S. & Kesselring, J. (2005). Link between faculty group development and

elementary student performance on standardized tests. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 320-338.

 

Zastrow, C., & Janc, H (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in

            America’s public schools. Council for Basic Education, U.S.A.

 

 

Appendix A

 Weighted Means and Scoring

Survey question/ weighted mean
(* denotes reverse response weight on a negatively themed question).		weight	responses
4a-I have read through and understand the standards for my grade level/subject.		5	128
		4	198
m=4.179		3	25
		2	14
		1	3
4b-The standards change too often.*		5	7
		4	80
m=2.951		3	184
		2	82
		1	15
4c-The standards help me to provide a framework for my teaching and ensure scope and sequence.		5	64
		4	209
m=3.772		3	55
		2	27
		1	13
4d-I haven’t yet been able to view the standards for this year*		5	139
		4	131
m=3.94		3	45
		2	43
		1	10
4e-Teaching the standards ensures students will learn up to date curriculum.		5	21
		4	126
m=3.057		3	101
		2	93
		1	27
4f-The standards are unrealistic because there are too many to be covered within the year.*		5	11
		4	80
m=2.649		3	99
		2	125
		1	53
4g-Standardized curriculum doesn’t restrict my creativity in teaching.		5	32
		4	108
m=2.815		3	54
		2	108
		1	66
4h-What students should know and be able to learn is best determined at the school and district level, rather than by state standards.*		5	24
		4	121
m=2.91		3	76
		2	92
		1	55
4i-I consult the standards in lesson and unit planning.		5	43
		4	188
m=3.484		3	61
		2	56
		1	20
4j-I find that the pressure I feel to teach all of the standards has a negative effect on my quality of  teaching.*		5	20
		4	85
m=2.72		3	87
		2	124
		1	52
4k-The standards are a realistic representation of what students should know and be able to do within the school year.		5	11
		4	121
m=2.889		3	86
		2	116
		1	34
4l-I feel pressured to teach all of the concepts mandated in the state standards.*		5	6
		4	66
m=2.438		3	66
		2	175
		1	55
4m-I have seen more student success in school because of standards.		5	10
		4	65
m=2.741		3	156
		2	92
		1	44
4n-Standards tend to emphasize lower levels of learning (Bloom’s taxonomy).*		5	8
		4	73
m=2.725		3	130
		2	122
		1	34
4o-Standards have improved the consistency in what students are taught each year.		5	28
		4	192
m=3.452		3	81
		2	50
		1	16
4p-Student achievement has lessened because of the focus on standards.*		5	14
		4	122
m=3.071		3	136
		2	66
		1	29
4q-Standards help to raise the educational bar.		5	15
		4	136
m=3.054		3	99
		2	88
		1	29
4r-The push toward standards has lead many of the best teachers to become less satisfied in their careers.*		5	11
		4	38
m=2.281		3	94
		2	124
		1	100
	6a-Standardized tests are an effective measurement of student learning.	5	3
		4	63
	m=2.388	3	71
		2	136
		1	72
	6b-Student learning is negatively affected because of time spent on preparation for standardized testing.*	5	11
		4	39
	m=2.27	3	59
		2	159
		1	77
	6c-Student progress in standardized testing is an effective measurement for determining teacher and school merit pay.	5	5
		4	2
	m=1.35	3	14
		2	65
		1	259
	6d-Some of the best teachers may be less likely teach in lower socioeconomic schools for fear of not to meeting testing goals.*	5	14
		4	25
	m=1.901	3	28
		2	124
		1	154
	6e-Standardized testing is important to ensure that students are knowledgeable and prepared to be competitive in the world.	5	4
		4	79
	m=2.562	3	80
		2	126
		1	56
	6f-A focus on improvement in student math and  reading scores is a problem because students are missing out on a well-rounded education.*	5	8
		4	60
	m=2.359	3	59
		2	140
		1	77
	6g-Standardized test scores are useful tools in teacher decision-making.	5	15
		4	149
	m=3.212	3	97
		2	62
		1	22
	6h-Student progress on standardized tests doesn’t seem to coincide with student ability.*	5	3
		4	64
	m=2.574	3	107
		2	125
		1	46
	6i-Standardized tests are important because they keep teachers accountable for student learning.	5	6
		4	80
	m=2.539	3	71
		2	125
		1	63
	6j-Teachers in my school are pressured by administration to “Improve test scores.”*	5	9
		4	25
	m=1.89	3	31
		2	134
		1	146
	6k- In order to focus on improvement in student math and reading scores, it is appropriate to cut other subjects.	5	28
		4	50
	m=2.1	3	18
		2	96
		1	140
	6l- Standardized test scores do not accurately test student learning.*	5	7
		4	32
	m=2.19	3	69
		2	147
		1	90
	6m- The focus on standardized testing has lead many of the best teachers to become more satisfied in their careers.	5	19
		4	17
	m=2.03	3	56
		2	115
		1	138
	6n- A focus on teaching for standardized testing is likely to create students who think at a lower cognitive level (as determined by Bloom’s taxonomy.*	5	6
		4	36
	m=2.19	3	98
		2	133
		1	72
	6o- Standardized tests ensure that students who are not proficient or are gifted are identified, that otherwise may not be.	5	4
		4	52
	m=2.435	3	93
		2	137
		1	59
	6p- I believe that being a teacher was a more rewarding occupation before there was such a focus on standardized testing.*	5	9
		4	34
	m=2.151	3	76
		2	107
		1	119
	6q- Teachers in my school work together to improve student test scores.	5	99
		4	194
	m=4.10	3	41
		2	9
		1	2

 

 

 

Appendix B

Survey Cover Letter

March 11, 2007

 

 

Dear (District name) Teachers,

 

   Standards and standardized testing have been both praised and under fire in many public forums. As a student intern in a middle school classroom at Middleton Middle School I have seen many differing teacher opinions on the issues. In fact, working with teachers has inspired me to decide to do my Masters thesis on the topic.

 

    The purpose of my study is to analyze teacher opinions of state standards and standardized testing in Idaho. I am working to send the survey to teachers within all of the districts in all of the counties of the “Treasure Valley” area. As a teacher in (District name), your experiences may differ from those of teachers in other districts. Therefore, your willingness to take the survey will be greatly appreciated.

 

     Please take about ten minutes (maximum) out of your busy schedule to help me paint a picture of how Idaho teachers feel about this debated topic. The survey may be reached through copying and pasting the link provided into your browser.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=462383259910

 

 

Thank you in advance

 

Allison Brooks

Albertson College of Idaho student

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Survey (Simple typed version of online survey from Survey Monkey):

Are you a practicing classroom teacher?

(Drop bar allowed selection of yes or no)

 

Which best represents the number of elementary schools within your district? (Number not including charter schools).

(Drop bar allowed selection of 1-5, 6-12, 13-20, 21 or more)

 

The following are statements about the Idaho State Standards and your classroom
curriculum. Please indicate the level you agree or disagree with each.

(Digital selection buttons for each: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree).

 

a. I have read through and understand the standards for my grade level/subject.

b. The standards change too often.

c. The standards help me provide a framework for my teaching and ensure scope and       sequence.

d. I haven’t yet been able to view the standards for this year.

e. Teaching the standards ensures students will learn up to date curriculum.

f. The standards are unrealistic because there are far too many to be covered within the

year.

g. Standardized curriculum doesn’t restrict my creativity in teaching.

h. What students should know and be able to learn is best determined at the school and district level, rather than by state standards.

i. I consult the standards in lesson and unit planning.

Sample survey cont’d

j. I find that the pressure I feel to teach all of the standards has a negative affect on my

quality of teaching.

k. The standards are a realistic representation of what students should know and be able to do within the school year.

l. I feel pressured to teach all of the concepts mandated in the state standards.

m. I have seen more student success in school because of standards.

 

n. Standards tend to emphasize lower levels of learning, as determined by Bloom’s

   taxonomy.
o. Standards have improved the consistency in what students are taught each year.

p. Student achievement has lessened because of the focus on standards.

q. Standards help to raise the educational bar.

r. The push toward standards has lead many of the best teachers to become less satisfied in their careers.

 

Additional comments about standards in Idaho: (Unlimited word text box)

The following are statements about standardized testing in Idaho. Please indicate the level you agree or disagree with each.

(Digital selection buttons for each: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree).

 

a. Standardized tests are an effective measurement of student learning.

b. Student learning is negatively affected because of time spent on preparation for standardized testing.

c. Student progress in standardized testing is an effective measurement for determining teacher and school merit pay.

d. Some of the best teachers may be less likely to teach in lower socioeconomic schools for fear of not meeting testing goals.

e. Standardized testing is important to ensure that students are knowledgeable and prepared to be competitive in the world.

f. A focus on improvement in student math and Language scores is a problem because students are missing out on a well-rounded education.
g. Standardized test scores are useful tools in teacher decision-making.
h. Student progress on standardized tests doesn’t seem to coincide with student ability.

i. Standardized tests are important because they keep teachers accountable for student learning.

j. Teachers in my school are pressured by administration to “improve test scores.”

 

k. In order to focus on improvement in student math and reading test scores it is appropriate to cut out other subjects.

l. Standardized test scores do not accurately test student learning.

m. The focus on standardized testing has lead some of the best teachers to become more satisfied in their careers.

n. A focus on teaching for standardized testing is likely to create students who think at a lower cognitive level (as determined by Bloom’s taxonomy).

o. Standardized tests ensure that students who are not proficient or are gifted are identified, that otherwise may not be.

p. I believe that being a teacher was a more rewarding occupation before there was such a focus on standardized testing.

q. Teachers in my school work together to improve student test scores.

 

Additional comments about testing in Idaho: (Unlimited word text box)