A Survey of Teachers' Perspectives on High-Stakes Testing in Colorado: What Gets Taught, What Gets Lost

Using a random sample of 1000 Colorado teachers, the researchers in this study surveyed the effects of standards, the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), and school report cards on instruction and test-related practices. The researchers found that standards were perceived to have a greater impact on improving instruction than did testing. Teachers said they aligned their curriculum, instruction, and lessons to the Colorado standards by adding important content. Specifically, attention to the state standards improved the quality of writing instruction and focused instruction in reading, probability, geometry, and math problem-solving explanations. The reported effects of CSAP testing were more mixed. Attention to CSAP improved writing instruction but shifted instruction away from social studies and science, increased the time spent on test format practice, and lowered faculty morale.

[1]  L. Darling-Hammond,et al.  Beyond Standardization: State Standards and School Improvement , 1985, The Elementary School Journal.

[2]  W. James Popham,et al.  The Merits of Measurement-Driven Instruction. , 1987 .

[3]  Mm Kennedy,et al.  A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers' knowledge (Technical Series ). East The National Center for Research on Teacher Education. , 1993 .

[4]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis , 1996 .

[5]  Marshall S. Smith,et al.  Systemic school reform , 1990 .

[6]  Milbrey W. McLaughlin,et al.  Improving Education Through Standards-Based Reform: A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform , 1995 .

[7]  Brian M. Stecher,et al.  The Effects of the Washington State Education Reform on Schools and Classrooms. CSE Technical Report. , 2000 .

[8]  John J. Cannell,et al.  Nationally Normed Elementary Achievement Testing in America's Public Schools: How All 50 States Are Above the National Average , 1988 .

[9]  L. Resnick,et al.  Assessing the Thinking Curriculum: New Tools for Educational Reform , 1992 .

[10]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[11]  M. O’Connor,et al.  Changing assessments : alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction , 1994 .

[12]  A. Collins.  National Science Education Standards: A Political Document. , 1998 .

[13]  Emily Wurtz.  Promises To Keep: Creating High Standards for American Students. Report on the Review of Education Standards from the Goals 3 and 4 Technical Planning Group to the National Education Goals Panel. , 1993 .

[14]  Robert L. Linn,et al.  The Effects of High-Stakes Testing On Achievement: Preliminary Findings About Generalization Across Tests , 1991 .

[15]  Lorrie A. Shepard,et al.  Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Instruction. , 1991 .

[16]  Andrew C. Porter,et al.  Reform of High School Mathematics and Science and Opportunity to Learn , 1994 .

[17]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform , 1983, CACM.

[18]  Mary M. Kennedy,et al.  A Study Package for Examining and Tracking Changes in Teachers' Knowledge. NCRTL Technical Series 93-1. , 1993 .

[19]  R. Linn.  Comparing State and District Test Results to National Norms: Interpretations of Scoring "Above the National Average.". , 1990 .

[20]  Frederick M. Hess.  Reform, Resistance,. .. Retreat? The Predictable Politics of Accountability in Virginia , 2002 .

[21]  Stephen B. Dunbar,et al.  Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectations and Validation Criteria , 1991 .

[22]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .