Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2008 Teachers' perspectives on the unintended consequences of high stakes testing David Christopher Charles Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, dccharles@yahoo.com Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Charles, David Christopher, "Teachers' perspectives on the unintended consequences of high stakes testing" (2008). LSU Doctoral Dissertations.edu/gradschool_dissertations/123 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.
TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF HIGH STAKES TESTING A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Educational Leadership, Research, & Counseling by David Christopher Charles B., Louisiana State University, 1987 M., University of New Orleans, 1997 May 2008 DEDICATION This study is dedicated to my wife, Colleen, and my sons, Nicky and Christopher. No man was ever blessed with a better family. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Concluding this study has definitely been an immense challenge and could not have been accomplished without the assistance and support of many individuals. I am very grateful for the understanding and support of my wife, Colleen.
She has made numerous sacrifices to assist me with my work on this project. She has spent many hours reading the drafts and offering suggestions. The smartest thing I ever did was marrying her 14 years ago. This achievement is hers as much as mine.
Also, my sons, Nicky and Christopher, who have had to do without a daddy on more than one occasion due to time spent on this project. I am enormously proud of them. Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents, Delton and Jacquelyn, who have been my role models and a constant source of encouragement. I love them dearly.
Their love and support of my endeavors can never be repaid. Also, I would like to thank my brother-in-law, Jaimie Hebert whose help was invaluable. He is a great brother-in-law and a great friend. Charles Teddlie has been wonderful through this entire process.
He has supplied excellent feedback that has helped me to develop in my research. Teddlie’s understanding of research has been priceless. I have greatly appreciated his assistance and direction. I am also appreciative of the help of the rest of my committee Dr.
Eugene Kennedy, Dr. Kim MacGregor, Dr. Wade Smith, Dr. Joe W Kotrlik and Dr.
Finally, I would also like to thank my family, friends, and co-workers who have all provided me with input, encouraged me to continue, and provided support in a variety of ways. I would also like to thank all of the teachers who took the time to complete the surveys and interviews. These very special people give their all for the betterment of the children of Jefferson Parish. Your contribution is appreciated.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. iii LISTS OF TABLES. vii LISTS OF FIGURES. 1 Statement of the Problem.
1 Purpose of the Study. 3 Framework of the Study. 4 Significance of the Study. 7 Definition of Terms.
7 Delimitations and Limitations. 10 Summary of Chapter 1. 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. 12 Introduction to High Stakes Testing.
13 The History of High Stakes Testing in the USA. 15 The Role of Government and the Courts. 18 Arguments For and Against High Stakes Testing. 21 Theory and School Improvement.
25 The Effects of High Stakes Testing on Classroom Practices and Students. 28 Potential Effects of High Stakes Testing. 30 Classroom Practices, Including Test Preparation. 35 Teacher Morale and Commitment to the Profession.
36 A Review of the Literature on Teachers’ Perceptions of Testing Programs. 39 Mixed Methods Research Design. 40 Recent Developments in Mixed Methods Research. 42 Why Use Mixed Methods?.
43 Importance of the Two Independent Variables. 45 Summary of Chapter 2. 51 Design For The Study. 52 Phase I Methodology for Study: Instrument Development.
53 iv Pilot Study. 56 Mixed Method Data Collection Procedures. 59 Phase II: Quantitative Phase. 62 Determination of School Performance Score (SPS).
62 Determination of Socioeconomic Status (SES). 66 Mixed Methods Sampling Procedures. 67 Administration of the Survey. 69 Phase III: Qualitative Phase.
69 Mixed Methods Analysis. 70 The Mixed Method Inference Process. 74 IRB and Jefferson Parish Public School System Approval. 75 Summary of Chapter 3.
75 CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS. 78 Descriptions of Participating Schools. 78 1) Poor SPS Score – Lower SES. 79 School A: Campus Description.
79 School B: Campus Description. 80 2) High SPS – Lower SES. 81 School C: Campus Description. 81 School D: Campus Description.
81 3) Poor SPS Score – Higher SES. 82 School E: Campus Description. 82 School F: Campus Description. 83 4) High SPS – Higher SES.
84 School G: Campus Description. 84 School H: Campus Description. 84 Results from Phase II Study. 85 Independent Variables in the Study.
85 Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables. 87 Classroom Practice Variable. 88 Perceived Pressure Variable. 89 Degree of Commitment Variable.
91 Analysis of Research Hypotheses. 93 Rationale for Analysis. 98 Summary of Chapter 4. 99 CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESULTS.
105 Data Collection Procedures. 106 Data Analysis Procedures. 109 Teaching to the Test. 115 Focus on Instruction.
121 Summary of Chapter 5. 125 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 129 Summary of the Study. 134 Implications of the Study.
140 Recommendations for Future Research. 143 Summary of Chapter 6. 146 APPENDIX A: STATE BY STATE DATA CONCERNING HIGH STAKES TESTING. 162 APPENDIX B: EFFECTS OF HIGH STAKES TESTING.
168 APPENDIX C: SURVEY INSTRUMENT. 173 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL. 177 APPENDIX E: PERMISSION LETTER. 180 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PERMISSION LETTER.
182 APPENDIX G: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL. 184 APPENDIX H: JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM APPROVAL. 188 vi LISTS OF TABLES Table 1.1: Levels of Corrective Actions .2: Components of School Performance Score .1: Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll .2: Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll .3: Potential Effects of High Stakes Testing .1: Sources of the Questions Included in the Survey Used for this Study .2: Rotated Factor Matrix.1: Effective Sample Size.2: Responses Concerning Classroom Practices .3: Means and Standard Deviations Concerning Classroom Practices .4: Responses Concerning Perceived Pressure .5: Means and Standard Deviations Concerning Perceived Pressure .6: Responses Concerning Commitment.7: Means and Standard Deviations Concerning Commitment.8: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS) Dependent Variable: Practice.9: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS*SES) Dependent Variable: Practice .10: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS) Dependent Variable: Pressure .11: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS*SES) Dependent Variable: Pressure .12: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS) Dependent Variable: Commit.13: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (SPS*SES) Dependent Variable: Commit.3: Research Questions Results.2: Current Participation In High Stakes Testing And Content Areas .1: Effects on Curriculum and Instruction.2: Effects on Student Learning.3: Effects on Attitudes and School Climate. 172 viii LISTS OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: QUAN – QUAL Methodology for Phases II & III.2: Sampling Procedures Surveys .3: Sampling Procedures Interviews .2: State Exit Exams.
165 ix ABSTRACT A mixed methods design was utilized that was divided into three phases to verify and explore high stakes testing’s effects on teachers’ perceptions regarding classroom practices, pressure, and commitment to the educational profession. Phase I utilized previous surveys and a peer review to create a knowledge base to generate a survey instrument that measured the three areas assumed to be affected by high stakes testing (commitment, pressure, and classroom practice). The survey instrument that was created was piloted. Throughout Phase II there was a series of three-step analysis: First, the means and standard deviations from the results of the surveys were divided into the four cells and presented.
Second, one-way ANOVAs were reported (with poor or high SPS scores as the independent variables) that test each of the three hypotheses. Third, two-way ANOVAs were reported (with poor or high SPS scores and lower or higher socioeconomic status (SES) as independent variables) to assess the effect that these variables jointly have on the dependent variables. The results of the quantitative portion of this study were that how well students performed on the high stakes testing and the SES of students at the schools had little effect on their teachers’ perceptions and responses to the testing program. All three hypotheses were not confirmed.
The teachers’ overall scores were all above average indicating that the three areas of study were present in all situations. During Phase III, two teachers were interviewed from each school for a total of sixteen teachers. All of the teachers interviewed stated that LEAP 21 testing did affect their instructional planning, learning strategies, and curriculum content. Such practices as teaching to the test, neglecting subjects, sequencing, and time allotment were greatly affected.
x All of the teachers interviewed stated that LEAP 21 testing forced them to devote some time to test preparation. Teachers provided a range of 1/3 of class time to a 100 %. There were many factors that were contributing to a lessening of commitment to the educational profession from some educators, especially the younger ones who have a less of a vested interest in the profession xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem All schools for miles and miles around Must take a special test To see who’s learning such and such - - To see which school’s the best. If our small school does not do well, Then it will be torn down, And you will have to go to school In dreary Flobbertown (Seuss, Pelutsky, & Smith, 1998, p.
Seuss wrote the book, Hooray for Diffendoofer Day, four years before high stakes testing in Louisiana began and ten years before its relevance was felt in Jefferson Parish. In 2005, two schools, Bunche Middle School and St. Ville Elementary were closed and their students, teachers, and administrators were sent packing to other schools. These schools were closed, largely, due to their poor test scores.
Educators perceive pressure for their students to score well on these tests from all levels – federal, state, and district. The federal government has passed “No Child Left Behind”. This piece of legislation was signed on January 8, 2002. The stated goals of this act are: to institute strong accountability standards for schools and students, expanded flexibility and local control, expanded option for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work (Goldhaber, 2002).
The accountability component has been the most controversial part of the Act (discussed in Chapter 2). It has added subgroups (minorities, special education, etc.) to the accountability system. The federal government monitors that the special groups achieve annual goals that are set and can punish those schools through the states that do not reach their goals of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). 1 The State of Louisiana has taken the cause of accountability to heart and is one of the most punitive regarding poor test scores (Johnson & Johnson, 2006).
In this state, the results of the tests determine if fourth and eighth graders pass to the next grade level and in high school, whether they graduate. Also, the school and its members are held accountable. The different levels of school improvement and their consequence can be seen in Table 1.1: Levels of Corrective Actions Level I In the first two-year growth cycle, schools with a SPS of 30 or below are placed in Level I corrective actions. These schools work with District Assistance Teams, utilizing the School Analysis Model, a state diagnostic process, to identify needs, redevelop school improvement plans, and examine use of school resources.