RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 1

Teacher Accountability and High Stakes Testing

David Barr, Tara Slade, Brad Glover, Elizabeth Murray
Professor Lovitt
SED 322
November 12, 2018
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 2

Introduction

Many people ask why is teachers having to be accountable a problem? Isn’t that good for

the school itself and the community itself? The answer to that question is that is a problem in the

way it is being done today. With someone’s job being on the line just because of a sole test,

shows that the U.S school system is suffering under its own laws that created the idea that would

fix the school system in the ways it needed at the time. By looking at the world around them, the

country saw itself lagging behind and had to find a way to catch up to the rest of that we feared

would be taking the jobs we wanted our students to get. Furthermore, the country wanted its ELL

students, poor students, special education students and the minority students to catch and stay at

the same pace of the rest of the students who did not face the challenges that they face on a daily

basis. The idea was full of optimism that had good reason to have. It sought to keep our students

kept up with the world and to make sure that the teachers were doing the jobs that they were

being paid for. This law was meant to fix the idea of American students falling behind the rest of

the world and not being able to keep up and lose out on the jobs that we are supposed to have

and cherish.

However, the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act did not come without its

problems. One of the many problems facing teachers today is how much pressure they have on

them to make sure that they are getting their students to pass their classes and, most of all, their

tests Many of the reason why the teachers feel the pressure on them is because of the laws passed

by our government that required high-stakes testing to be the end all of grading not only the

student, but, also the teacher. The No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2002 has been the root

cause of all these problems. The law states that “states must test students in reading and math in

grades 3 through 8 and once in high school” (Klien, edweek.org). With that being said, it also
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 3

created the idea that a teacher’s job to get a student to pass a test to show their proficiency rather

than show how they have improved throughout the year. Within this problem, we see how it can

negatively teachers in wanting to stay teachers or, students wanting to become a teacher. With all

the pressure on them to succeed, they burn out quickly and fear whether or not they can keep a

job in the long run. Much of this has to do with the proficiency scale that everything is graded

upon. In order to pass the test or the grade for that matter, you have to be a proficient student and

it is the teacher’s job to do so. If they do not meet this idea, they quickly fired and someone new

is brought in to try and fix the said problem. Furthermore, teachers are also badly affected when

they try work with other teachers. They do not do so anymore and because of that, many of the

teacher collaboration we are taught about and how well it can benefit the student does not

happen. As a group, we feel as if this something that is slowly being left behind because of the

testing and something that would actually make the students enjoy school if they just saw how all

the subjects relate to one another. For us, as history teachers, this is vital to our discipline not

being forgotten and left behind because history is not being tested like the other subjects. With

that being said, the results of having teacher accountability has been widely under performing in

the areas that were supposed to be fixed by the laws that came with it. One of the problems are

currently experiencing in the state of Arizona is the massive teacher shortage that is plaguing our

schools and is allowing our students to not get the teaching knowledge that deserves from their

years in school. This can be directly attributed to teacher accountability and other factors that

come along with that idea. In the paper that follows, the idea of teacher accountability will be

addressed and research will be given that shows whether or not it truly has worked in the

classroom and is helping the students that all of us as teacher deeply care about.
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 4

Discussion

The problem with focusing on high stakes testing and teacher accountability has been

identified in multiple ways in the field of education. Not only does it place teachers in a

precarious position within their districts, it places them in direct competition with their peers and

affects their desire and ability to teach “riskier” student populations. Additionally, there have

been cases of corruption and cheating to show higher growth. The accountability teachers face in

the school environment has been identified as managerial accountability on accountability

expert and Political Science Professor Melvin Dubnick’s discussion on the four orders of

accountability. The term refers to the use of incentives and/or sanctions “as a means to motivate

and elicit purposive behavior, such as better service and effectiveness.” (Holloway, Sorensen,

Verger, 2017).

Directly linking teacher accountability and student test scores began with the No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 that stated schools should be held accountable for tests scores.

A further measure came in 2009 with the Race to the Top (RttP) initiative. Among the main parts

of the RttP initiative was to build data systems that would directly link student’s test scores to

teachers and principals and then use that data to train and retain effective teachers and principals.

As recently as 2015, 43 states required that proof of student growth on standardized testing be

used in teacher evaluations although there is no longer federal requirements to do so. The Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 placed teacher evaluations back in the discretion of the

states and no longer required a standard teacher evaluation to receive federal money. Even with

the passing of ESSA, many states still rely heavily on test scores as part of teacher evaluations

(Alzen, Fahle, and Domingue, 2017).

RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 5

Many teachers fear for their jobs as a result of linking test scores to their individual

performance and may be offered bonuses for showing high student growth on test scores by the

value-added measurement (VAM). The VAM was introduced as a way to tie student growth over

time with teacher effectiveness but seems to have had the opposite effect. Because of the VAM,

some teachers seek out desirable students, the ones that will show growth. Classrooms and

schools that serve lower socio-economic families and more ELL students or special needs

become less desirable places to teach. Statistics show that students in lower socio-economic

areas score lower on standardized tests due to many factors such as lack of food and health care,

absenteeism, and family violence. Child poverty rates in the United Sates had risen two percent

from 2008 to 2014 and the United States has more income inequality than any other wealthy

country (Morgan, 2017). With rising poverty rates, more students will find themselves at an

educational disadvantage especially when teachers are forced to be more concerned with their

testing evaluations than the education of underprivileged students. On the other side of this issue

lay gifted and higher achieving students. These students generally perform at a high level each

year so it is difficult, if not impossible, to show their growth on standardized testing. Some

teachers want to avoid these students as well because they will not receive bonuses and may feel

concern for their positions when these high achieving students are unable to score higher.

Another concern with teacher accountability is it leads to a lack of collaboration among

teachers. When teachers feel their jobs are on the line and they are in competition with their

peers, they are reluctant to engage in learning communities and share best practices. Countries

that are leaders in education, like Finland, encourage weekly collaboration meetings among

teachers and faculty and acknowledge the benefits for students when they are able to learn from

the broader knowledge of school faculty. In schools where teacher evaluations rely partly on test
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 6

scores, the learning environment changes as teachers focus more on defeating their colleagues

than providing the best education for their students. Students then only receive the expertise of

one teacher instead of all teachers and are severely limited in their learning.

Cheating, corruption, and falsifying results has also become more present in the field of

education because of school and teacher accountability for test results. In fact, the “Texas

miracle” that inspired President George W. Bush to enact NCLB was based on misinformation.

Texas reported students were scoring extremely well when they held schools and teachers

accountable for test scores. However, research proved the Texas standardized tests where

students were achieving remarkable results still fell below the 30th percentile on the Stanford

National test. Another case occurred in Washington D.C. schools. Former school chancellor

Michelle Rhee created a system specifically linking test scores to teacher bonuses and then fired

many teachers for failing to meet the school’s goals. Immediately following the layoffs of those

teachers, test results began to rise and officials suspected cheating because a lot of erasure marks

were found. Rhee has not officially been accused of cheating but some officials want a more

thorough investigation. Another case in Atlanta in 2013 found that educators and school staff

were erasing wrong answers and adding in the correct answers, resulting in the indictment of 35

employees including the superintendent. Although not all schools have gone as far as outright

cheating or changing scores, some schools and districts have relied on manipulating results or

lowering the cutoff test scores that equate to proficiency. The case of the “Texas Miracle” is a

prime example of schools lowering the cutoff scores (Morgan, 2016). If teacher evaluations were

not based so heavily on their students test scores, many would not feel the need to cheat and

falsify information.

Research
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 7

There is a crisis in what is arguably one the United States greatest inventions: the public-

school system. Thousands of teachers nation-wide believe that danger is inevitable.

Unfortunately, politicians and government agencies don’t seem to be listening. Public education

is showing serious and harmful symptoms because of high stakes testing.

For about a century, standardized testing for assessing aptitudes and

achievement has played an increasingly prominent role in shaping American

educational thinking. These various tests have been used to assess students’

aptitudes and achievements, inform decisions about curriculum and instruction,

and make predictions about how successful a student may be in the future. Most

Americans have had faith that these tests were crafted with the utmost care, with

proper concern for validity (does the test really measure what it purports to

measure?) and reliability (are the scores students get dependable, were the test to

be given again?). For the most part, these tests have been successful. Most

citizens are satisfied with the information received from these tests and the uses

that are made of them. (Nichols, 2)

Standardized testing is nothing new. They have been dated back to ancient China when

servants had to pass a standardized test to gain employment. For many decades in the United

States standardized tests have been used as a tool for instructors to gauge what the students

already know and what they still need to learn. Making these tests “high stakes” began in 2001

with the No Child Left Behind legislation. High stakes meaning that the results of the tests have

life changing consequences for students, teachers, and administration.

To understand how America got to NCLB, we must go back to the Space Race of the

1950’s and 1960’s. The U.S. was heavily involved in a competition with the former USSR as to
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 8

who had the top scientists, who would launch the first working satellite, who could put a man on

the moon, etc. When the USSR successfully launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, on

October 4, 1957, it was serious blow to the pride of America. The American educational system

was to blame. In 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed as a

call for greater attention to the quality of America’s schools and the needs of

students from less advantaged homes. The concerns emanating from Russia’s win

in the space race resulted in the development and implementation of minimum

competency tests—tests used to ensure all students left school with at least the

ability to read and do basic math. (Nichols, 3)

A student may not graduate from high school if they did not pass the test, however there were no

consequences for teachers or administration.

Eventually the minimum competency tests were criticized for being too easy. They were

concerned with the achievement floor as opposed to the achievement ceiling. Many felt that

students were not being stretched enough, that overall performance was not improving, and the

achievement gap between minorities, the poor, and upper- or middle-class white students was not

being reduced.

Concern for education in America grew in the years following ESEA. Hysteria grew

over international data that showed our students were not performing as well as other students

around the globe. To add insult to injury, the international economy was growing at a time when

the domestic economy was struggling. “American education became the scapegoat for a host of

bad business decisions” (Nichols, 4). In 1983, Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on

Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk, “a report that predicted that unless public
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 9

education received a major overhaul and unless expectations for student achievement were

raised, America’s economic security would be severely compromised” (Nichols, 4).

Many citizens and politicians believe that attaching consequences to education is the best

way to improve education. “The tests are seen by some as the perfect policy mechanism because

they are both effectors and detectors—they are intended to effect or cause change in the system

and then detect whether changes in the system actually occur” (Nichols, 6).

High-stakes testing has led to teachers using “drill and kill” procedures. “Drill and kill

produces short-term increase in test scores, but it doesn’t boost scores in the long run because

there’s no foundation to build on” (Long, 2014). Students will memorize information, take an

exam, and then forget the information. Information is not stored into the long-term memory

through this strategy, therefore authentic learning is not taking place.

NCLB is causing teachers to feel resentment, avoid difficult school situations (i.e. Title I

schools) and avoid teaching in general, and cheat to raise student test scores. “Teachers lack faith

in a testing program’s worth. When teachers doubt the wisdom of high-stakes programs, they are

offended by what they regard as a distorted view of what education should be. Thus, not only is

teachers’ enthusiasm for the No-Child Act’s provisions dampened, but they may actively

circumvent and weaken the implementation of the testing system” (Thomas, 371).

Teachers are also avoiding working in schools with low test scores to avoid being

criticized, or as we have seen in Arizona, many have left the teaching profession completely.

Damage. “A shortage of qualified teachers contributes to students’ poor test performance.

School districts that offer low pay and unappealing living conditions fail to attract enough skilled

teachers. As a result, their students are not well prepared for state tests and their schools are
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 10

labeled failures because they are expected to meet the same federal standards held for schools in

attractive, affluent communities” (Thomas, 380).

Some teachers have even stooped to cheating, because of the high stress situation these

high-stakes tests are causing educators.

Faced with the prospect of being blamed for students’ poor test results, some

teachers adopt illicit means for improving test scores. Such practices contribute to

false reports of student progress that can invalidate the ‘school report cards’ that

are intended to help parents, taxpayers, and state officials evaluate the

performance of schools and teachers. Cheating by teachers also sets a bad moral

example for learners and violates the integrity of the entire testing process.

(Thomas, 382)

Solutions

Schools have an issue that is running rampant at present. That issue is that students are

not being taught content, but instead being taught to the test they will inevitably have to take

over the year. Part of why there are such issues in this field is due to the fact that English

Language Learner test scores only have a small accommodation made for personal growth year

after year. For example, if a student in Eighth Grade advances from a Second Grade to a Fifth

Grade level across a year, they likely will not be able to succeed on the standardized test, but

they have absolutely grown and that educator has done their job more than can have been

expected of them, but that is barely taken into account.

What students require of their educators is personal relationships, which they will

absolutely never get when the educator is afraid for their job. This is something that can be seen
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 11

throughout life, if someone’s priorities are not in the place others need them to be then they will

continually fail the person they are supposed to be serving, no matter the situation. How can we

keep teacher focus and priorities where the students need them to be? Remove teacher

accountability from the test scores of their students. This might be a far-fetched idea, but it

would mean that teachers would be less fearful for their jobs.

While the previous solution is an idea, it is likely not a good one. For that reason, it will

be suggested that standardized tests move from simple standard testing to testing personal

growth of the students. The tests are already gathering data on students and so why should they

not use that data year after year? There is also no need to punish students who cannot possibly

succeed on tests either because of deficiencies or because they test poorly. By testing students

solely on their growth over a year, the schools will be able to see how the teachers foster growth

in their students every year and will be able to train new teachers in how to promote this growth

in their students. This also would likely reduce student stress surrounding these standardized

tests as they know that they are not being tested against a machine, they are being tested against

themselves, and the standards second. Based on the data, this would seem to be a better approach

to the No Child Left Behind approach because it actually takes every single child into account

every year.

This solution may be lovely, but it cannot stand entirely on its own, and there are two

more things that can be done in order to improve the quality of education available to students

and the emotional wellbeing of students and teachers alike. The first idea is to bring in standards

tests for other content areas outside of the STEM content and English. Students work hard in

other areas and it would make them happy to show the state and their educators what they can
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 12

do, especially when they are talking about fine arts that these students have passion for, like

drama.

Outside of drama, fine arts, and electives, there is one subject that is not tested at all and

it makes it feel, to teachers, like it is thoroughly unimportant and that they are wasting the

students’ time. This area is history, while it is tested in AP tests or other outside of standard

school tests, there is no school test beside the now mandatory civics exam. With this not being

tested, students feel almost disrespected about having to take these classes because of how much

their other teachers are working toward the test near the end of the year. If students are being

tested on history or other social studies areas, they will pay more attention in these classes but

also take to heart the storytelling nature of learning history. This will also mean that students will

not burn out as much during the day because they will no longer feel as though their teachers do

not care about their needs or their requirements for the end of the year.

The final idea for how to change standardized testing is one that will require an entire

overhaul of the education system as it is known today. This idea would be to introduce inquiry-

based standards. This may seem like a fairly simple idea, but it would eradicate student burnout

and forestall teacher burnout, hopefully allowing teachers to remain in the industry longer.

Students will be less burnt out due to the fact that they will be learning what they want to learn

and they will be able to show what they have learned in a way that is special or important to

them. Teachers will have less burnout because they will be able to foster passion for the students

instead of trying to be the entire source of passion and excitement for these students throughout

the entire year. Sometimes a student will latch on to the concepts they are learning, but that is

rare and it is far more likely that these students will just check out. If students have a feeling that
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 13

they are in control of their education, they will be more responsive when educators try to

introduce content to them.

This idea of inquiry-based standards will also transfer over to high-stakes testing. This is

due to the fact that students will be asked to create their own answers and answer questions in

their own way, much like the essay-portion of the old AIMS test. This would take students out of

that stark, white, unforgiving classroom and test environment and into a world that they get to

create. There is no need to fear a test if a person is thoroughly aware of what they will see and

what they might be asked to do. More than that though, they will be totally fearless if they are

able to take this test and make it their own.

There is a lot that can be done to improve the current situation of standardized testing.

While it is not being argued that standardized testing should be totally eradicated, mainly

because they are extremely helpful in measuring what students know and what needs to be

explained better or how a school can improve. What is being argued is that standardized testing

should be less important in teacher evaluation or the tests should connect growth to teacher

accountability. Other than that, it is about changing the way that schools educate children to

provide for less teacher and student burnout.

While the main focus of this paper is on teachers, it must touch on students because, at

the end of the day, we are all in this together and the only way everyone can grow is together.
RUNNING HEAD: TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIGH STAKES TESTING 14

References

Alzen, J. L., Fahle, E. M., & Domingue, B.W. (2017). The Implications of Reduced Testing for
Teacher Accountability. AERA Open, 3(2), 23328584177041.
Doi:10.1177/2332858417704411
Holloway, J., Sorensen, T.B., & Verger, A. (2017). Global Perspectives on High Stakes Teacher
Accountability Policies: An Introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 85.
Doi:10.14507/epaa.25.3325
Long, Cindy. (2014, June 17). “The High-Stakes Testing Culture: How We Got Here, How We

Get Out.” Neatoday.org http://neatoday.org/2014/06/17/the-high-stakes-testing-culture-

how-we-got-here-how-we-get-out/

Klein, A. (2018, October 25). No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements,
Criticisms, and More. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-
definition-summary.html
Morgan, H. (2016). Relying on High Stakes Standardized Tests to Evaluate Schools and
Teachers: A Bad Idea. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 89(2), 67-72. doi:10.1080/00098655.2016.1156628
Nichols, S.L. & Berliner, David C. (2007). Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing

Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Thomas, R. Murray. High-Stakes Testing: Coping with Collateral Damage, Routledge, 2005.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asulib-

ebooks/detail.action?docID=227534.

Created from asulib-ebooks on 2018-11-09 12:33:08.